Cintas (CTAS, $191.55) is perhaps best-known for providing corporate uniforms, but the company also offers maintenance supplies, tile, and carpet cleaning services and even compliance training. As such, it’s seen by some investors as a bet on jobs growth.
There may be something to that. Shares have more than tripled over the past five years vs. a gain of just 51% for the S&P 500. In January, the economy notched its 100th consecutive month of employment gains. Meanwhile, weekly jobless claims stand at levels last seen in 1969.
Regardless of how the labor market is doing, Cintas is a stalwart as a dividend payer. The company has raised its payout every year since going public in 1983. Most recently, in October, Cintas raised its annual dividend by 26.5% to $2.05 a share.

Here's an older (2012) article by Wade Pfau summarizing a research paper he did on the subject:
Efficient Frontiers: Inflation Assumptions, Fixed SPIAs, & Inflation-Adjusted SPIAs
While it dates from a few years ago, I figure that interest rates haven't changed much since then, especially since they've backslided in the past half year.
Like Tomlinson (the original linked article), Pfau observes that "Today ... fixed SPIAs performed so much better than inflation-adjusted SPIAs." He's looking at completely fixed SPIAs as opposed to Tomlinson's SPIAs with fixed annual increases." Either way, the nominal amounts are set in stone, independent of inflation (despite Tomlinson calling them COLA SPIAs).
What I like about Pfau's article is that he shows how these results can be incorporated into a full investment plan:

In the case study used the article, a 65-year old heterosexual couple requiring a 4% withdrawal rate to meet their lifestyle goals (and whose minimum spending needs were set equal to the lifestyle goal) was best served by combinations of stocks and fixed single-premium immediate annuities (SPIAs). At current product pricing levels, there is little need for bonds, inflation-adjusted SPIAs, or immediate variable annuities with guaranteed living benefit riders (VA/GLWBs).

This relates back to another thread that explained why having an annuity allowed one to be more aggressive with the rest of one's portfolio. According to Pfau (assuming one has enough of an annuity income stream), one can not be merely more aggressive, but invest entirely in stocks.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/50475/here-s-why-advisors-may-urge-retirees-to-load-up-on-equities
While Tomlinson and Pfau both use Monte Carlo simulations, comparing and contrasting their articles helps to highlight the limitations and deficiencies of the simplistic models implemented on web sites.
They each acknowledge how sketchy their input is:
Tomlinson: "The current Treasury/TIPS spread is just under 2% and we also know that the Fed is targeting 2% inflation. However, my purely subjective view ..."
Pfau: "Your views about future inflation are quite important to this decision."
Tomlinson uses his subjective sense to construct a skewed distribution of inflation rates (something many tools can't handle), while Pfau falls back on a normal bell curve. These people are making subjective, albeit well educated, guesses on distributions, and admitting that whatever they guess has a major impact on their conclusions.
That's not an argument against trying. It's an argument for putting a lot more effort into the guessing than letting a website pick a default and pressing a button. It's an argument for using a model that has the flexibility to deal with sophisticated guesses. Otherwise, all you've got is GIGO.
Pfau summarizes the potential impact of higher inflation nicely:

Note that higher inflation would also hurt the performance of the VA/GLWB strategy since its guarantees cannot be expected to keep pace with inflation, and it would also hurt bond mutual funds since the interest rate increases accompanying higher inflation would result in capital losses.
Higher inflation will not completely overturn the idea that the efficient frontier consists of stocks and SPIAs, but it could influence the result about whether the appropriate SPIA choice is a fixed SPIA or a real SPIA

Perhaps we're reading too much into the statement that the sales charges were dropped. That could mean "removed", or merely "reduced", as in: the retailer dropped the price of its merchandise to give a huge boost to its sales. Or it could mean "removed but replaced":

In 1979 Fidelity removed its 8½ percent sales charges on almost all its funds and began selling its funds directly to the public with no sales charges (no load) or a low load of two to three percent

https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/economics-business-and-labor/businesses-and-occupations/fmr-corp
I don't doubt that Fidelity Fund became noload in 1979, but Magellan was given a 3% load, and Puritan got a 2% purchase/1% redemption load.
Here's a 1989 book (complete) where you can see how in the 1980s Fidelity grouped its funds into international equity, capital growth, growth and income, sector funds (then called "Select Funds"), taxable bond funds, muni funds, money market funds. Funds that carried a load then usually followed the Puritan 2%/1% model, except for a few equity funds with a 3% purchase load: Overseas FOSFX, Growth Company FDGRX, Magellan FMAGX, and OTC Portfolio FOCPX. International Growth and Income Fund (now Int'l Discovery) FIGRX was the oddball, at 1%/1%.
(Around 1990 Fidelity changed the 2%/1% loads into 3% purchase loads.)
The Investors Guide to Fidelity Funds, Winning Strategies for Mutual Fund Investing
http://www.tangotools.com/ui/fkbook.pdf

Hi @MikeM
Being curious, a Chart-O-Matic of 2 gold funds, 2 gold miner funds and a compare against FBALX. The backward look is limited to Nov., 2009 based upon inception of GDXJ.
Chart
Nothing against precious metals, and we have played in the past with Fido funds; and their day may arrive again with meaningful gains.
I note this from our perspective of having our faces in this area back in the crazy days of the late 1970's-early 1980's; when we were one of those tables set up in a mall buying and selling coins, etc. Fun and interesting times.
ADD: during the 2008-2009 market melt, precious metals didn't do much to protect assets for any meaningful time frame.

Please, for those who know more than I do: why is this NEW fund advertised as an "income" fund? Is that not the raison d'etre of bond funds generally?

There are income funds and there are total return funds. From one of many articles about Bill Gross' retirement:

“His real claim to fame was pioneering total return investing in fixed income,” said Miriam Sjoblom, director of fixed-income ratings at Morningstar. “That means you are not just concerned with collecting income. You are concerned with price appreciation and avoiding losses.
“The fact that he was able to popularize a style of investing that didn’t focus on yield changed the industry,” Sjoblom said.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/pimco-founder-bill-gross-the-bond-king-calls-it-quits/
DoubleLine confuses matters by calling its fund an income fund while stating that its objective "is to maximize total return". Compare that with, say, DODIX, which says that it "seeks a high and stable rate of current income, consistent with long-term preservation of capital. A secondary objective is to take advantage of opportunities to realize capital appreciation." (Quotes from funds' respective prospectuses.)
Maybe just a matter of degree these days, with everything giving a nod to appreciation.

I generally agree with this article (about counting annuities as part of the "safe" portion of your portfolio allocation). It does gloss over a couple of points that merit further thought.
One is how to reduce to present value, i.e. how does one calculate the present value of an income stream in order to know how much one has in "safe" investments? It suggests using the commercial rate for an immediate annuity today that would be comparable to one's pension (if one is lucky enough to have one).
This approach could also be applied to an annuity that one annuitied some time in the past. One might have paid $100K for an immediate annuity in 2014, while that same annuity might cost only $70K today. In part because one has fewer years of life left, but also in part because interest rates have risen slightly. In that sense, an income stream is very much like a bond portfolio - its day to day mark to market value fluctuates.
Notice also that the value of social security isn't discounted to present value. That's because it is inflation adjusted. The value of $20K/year in 2020 is the same as the value of $20K/year in 2030. No need to discount. In the article, it appears that the writer assumed a 22 year life expectancy; $20K x 22 years = $440K shown for Client B.
The other point to think about is why own bonds at all, if your guaranteed income stream (pension, annuities) is large enough to cover essential expenses. The article suggests that the reason is to let people sleep at night ("risk tolerance").
This consideration is real but emotional (since by hypothesis the risk is minimal). If people have trouble addressing this, they will also likely continue ignoring the present value of their income stream for asset allocation. Because all one sees on one's monthly brokerage statements are the assets in the portfolio.
Of course any form of insurance (social security, pensions, annuities) has a cost (overhead). This cost can be reclaimed via the flexibility to be more aggressive with the rest of one's portfolio. Similarly, keeping a cash reserve (see thread on how much cash to keep in retirement) allows one to be more aggressive with the remaining assets.

Not saying these are the best global dividend payers; but, it is what I own in my global equity and global hybrid sleeves found in the growth & income area of my portfolio. In my global equity sleeve I own DWGAX which has a dividend yield of 2.04%, CWGIX which has a dividend yield of 2.16%, DEQAX which has a dividend yield of 2.36% and EADIX which has a dividend yield of 3.67%. In my global hybrid sleeve I own CAIBX whcih as a dividend yield of 3.15%, TEQIX which has a dividend yield of 3.71% and TIBAX which has a dividend yield of 4.35%. All these funds pay quarterly except TEQIX which pays annually and EADIX which pays monthly.
My three highest dividend paying funds within my portfolio are PCLAX with a dividend yield of 17.23%, PMAIX with a dividend yield of 5.77% and FKINX with a dividend yield of 5.33%. PCLAX pays quarterly while PMAIX and FKINX pays monthly.
My portfolio contains four areas of investment which includes a cash area, an income area, a growth & income area and a growth area and overall has a dividend yield of better than 3.2%. When I include capital gain distributions it tops out at better than a 5% distribution yield. My current asset allocation is 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity. This portfolio generates more than enough income to meet my needs plus I have some residual left over for new investment opportunities. Going forward, should I not be able to make enough interest in my cash area to offset inflation then I'll reduce cash by 5% and raise my income area by 5%.
My investment focus since I retired five years ago has been to invest for income generation over growth of principal. However, since I retired I have also been able to grow my principal.

Hedge Fund Managers' 7 Favorite Stocks of 2019
https://money.usnews.com/investing/stock-market-news/slideshows/hedge-fund-managers-favorite-stocks
Apple
Microsoft
Bac
Wellsfargo
Fb
Cocacola
Amazon
Once every quarter, investors get a glimpse inside the minds of some of the wealthiest and most successful investors in the U.S. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requires any funds with more than $100 million in assets under management to file public quarterly updates on their stock holdings on form 13F.
Hedge funds made some big profits in a red-hot U.S. stock market in the first quarter of 2019. Novus recently compiled the following list of the top seven largest stock investments among fundamental equity managers that filed 13F forms.
1. Apple (ticker: AAPL). Apple is the top overall pick among hedge fund managers. After a hot start to the year, Apple shares dipped in May due to the company’s exposure to the U.S. trade war with China.
However, the stock still shows 22% gains for the year, outpacing the 15.4% rise of the S&P 500 index. D.E. Shaw & Co. and Adage Capital Management are top investors, each owning more than $1 billion in AAPL stock. Hedge funds reported owning a total of $57.9 billion in AAPL stock at the end of the first quarter.
2. Microsoft Corp. (MSFT). The company that overtook Apple as the most valuable public company is also the second top pick among hedge funds. Microsoft has been a market leader in 2019, gaining more than 32% year-to-date and pushing its market cap to more than $1 trillion.
In April, Microsoft reported fiscal third-quarter revenue growth of 14%, including 41% growth in commercial cloud sales and 71% Azure revenue growth. Top Microsoft investors include TCI Fund Management ($2 billion) and Tiger Global Management ($1.5 billion). Hedge funds reported $31.6 billion in total MSFT stock holdings. – Wayne Duggan

- “My issue is related to ... RISK TOLERANCE ... Investing is so emotional for many of us. Its hard to sit by and watch your Account Balance go down the tubes.”
- “I've (incorrectly) gone to cash more often than I want to admit over the years. Though I am shy of my 50s, I am personally still all about preservation of capital.”
- “Combine this president, with his "Tariff policies", alongside a very, very long bull market...... and I am once again (cautious).” I am mostly in CASH. “

Hi @JoeD, You raise a lot of interesting points. Nothing much I can say, but some vague thoughts might help ...
Re risk tolerance - Everybody’s different based on their own life experiences and personality. You remind me of one time in the ‘80s when I had secured a good paying job and wished to do something nice for my aging parents. Knowing they weren’t very astute in money matters, I opened an account in their name in a reputable money market fund that was yielding something like a crazy 15-20% in those days. Gifted them $1,000 which was the minimum to open an account. I hoped they would let it grow into their retirement years, perhaps add to it, and that it might benefit them years later. While grateful, they were suspicious of this new-fangled type of account in a big city somewhere and almost immediately cashed-out and moved the money to their passbook account at a local bank yielding something like 3%. So for them (both products of the Depression), even a money market fund was way beyond their risk tolerance!
Going to cash can be risky from an investment standpoint. Sure, if you will need the money within a few years, it’s a smart move. But if you are doing it with the intent of reinvesting later on, it’s tough to pull-off. I’d rather invest in something like TRRIX (a lame 40/60 fund) if I was really worried about the markets. If your guess is right and the market tanks you will lose something - maybe 20% of your money. But over the very long-term the fund should allow you to sleep better and keep you at least ahead of inflation. FWIW - My gut tells me equities are overpriced. But I’m not going to bet the ranch on that gut feeling.
Missing is reference to the purpose for which you are investing. I’d assume it’s for retirement in another 10-15 years. With retirement that near, I’d be reluctant to go overboard with aggressive equity funds myself. However, I wouldn’t exclude equities completely. I started moving out of the really aggressive stuff at about age 50 (but retired in my early 50s). Again, there are many great conservative funds that will keep you out of deep trouble during a big sell off and still help you accumulate more for retirement than cash would. Furthermore; most of us dollar cost average into our equity positions during our working years. I’d think that during those years the temptation (or need) to “sell all” and move to cash would be lessened.
re: “Bizarro” politics. I may share your foreboding. But I think we do a disservice to @Junkster who devoted considerable time and thought into creating a pretty valuable thread if we move it into the political arena. So I won’t go there and hope others don’t. What I tell myself every day is that regardless of who is President or what type of government we become, great companies like Amazon, Boeing, Apple, Microsoft aren’t going to go away - at least any time soon. So we may be appalled by some of the politics taking place, but that shouldn’t deter us from investing in great capitalist companies and sharing in the wealth they create.
There’s no right answer to any of this. And nothing I said should be construed as investment advice.
Regards

What happens if Trump can't fabricate a legit "victory" on the Chinese Tariff front - can the market blow this off?
Maybe it really is just better to play along like Alfred E. Neuman. Whistle as you walk by the graveyard....without a worry. "Trump will prop it up because he wants to win in 2020." That might buy us another few quarters.

FWIW.....It's my hunch the stock market currently thinks that (a) the Fed will do what it can to try to prolong the current economic expansion and that (b) Trump will claim victories and move on as needed in his international economic battles to try to assure the economy is still growing during the 2020 election year. So, the stock market is thinking the party can probably continue for at least a while longer.

January 11 Flag (2015)
Basically correct. To the extent that your taxable income remains within the 15% tax bracket, your cap gains/qualified divs gets taxed at 0%.
In 2014, if a couple had $94,100 in AGI (all cap gains/qualified divs), then line 38 (AGI on p. 2) would be $94,100. Subtracting a standard deduction of $12,400 gets us down to $81,700. Subtracting two exemptions ($3,950 each), gets us to a taxable income of $73,800.
Taxable income under $73,800 is taxed at 15% (or less). So if that's your total income, the cap gains/qualified div portion of it is taxed at 0%.
I guess the rate went up just a little ,50% increase ?
Derf

In the Hotchkis & Wiley family of funds Old_Skeet owns HWIAX which is their capital income fund and it too owns most anything that it wants. Within this fund you will find many of the equity holdings that are also found in HWAAX. HWIAX pays a monthly dividend and has a yield of better than 3% while HWAAX pays annually with a yield of less than 1%. HWAAX is listed by M* as a 85+% equity allocation fund while HWIAX is listed as a 50% to 70% equity allocation fund. Years back, I chose HWIAX over HWAAX because of the higher yield and monthly distributions.

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+we've+learned+about+target-date+funds+10+years+later&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-m
Enter News, Quotes, Companies or Videos
Target-date funds have emerged strongly from the damage of 10 years ago, but some advisers say their one-size-fits-all approach to investing isn’t suitable for every investor. Nicolas Ortega
Journal Reports: Funds/ETFs
What We’ve Learned About Target-Date Funds, 10 Years Later
A decade after target-date funds were damaged during the financial crisis, they have re-emerged bigger than ever as retirement investments. But they still have vulnerabilities.
By Jeff Brown
May 5, 2019 10:09 p.m. ET
Back in 2008, many investors looking ahead to retirement in two years had a shock when “target-date funds” designed for them plummeted in value. Many had assumed those funds, targeted to a 2010 retirement, were safe from large moves that late in the game.
Despite the jolt to investor confidence, target-date funds have flourished in the decade since, becoming a staple in workplace retirement plans such as 401(k)s, as a net $532 billion in investor money poured in during that time, according to data from the Investment Company Institute trade group.
Journal Report
Insights from The Experts
Read more at WSJ.com/FundsETFs
More in Investing in Funds & ETFs
Fund Fees Still Vary Too Much
How Much Cash in Retirement?
U.S.-Stock Funds Rose 3.6% in April
529s or Coverdells for College?
ETFs Dial In to 5G
Whether that is a good thing remains a matter of debate. Some financial experts question the value of target-date funds, saying their one-size-fits-all approach to investing isn’t suitable for every investor. Others say the funds can be a good way to save for both retirement and college—as long as investors pay attention to the products’ risk profile, fees and performance, especially as market conditions change.
Of course, the idea behind target-date funds, or TDFs, is to make investing as simple as possible by gradually adjusting to a more conservative investment mix as a target date approaches. As the default option in many workplace retirement plans, TDFs attract investors who don't want to choose and rebalance their own investments and may not be aware that the funds can still own lots of risky stocks close to and even after the target date arrives.
“There is a common misconception among many target-date holders that the portfolio is completely de-risked at retirement, and that simply isn’t true,” says Robert R. Johnson, professor of finance at Creighton University’s Heider College of Business in Omaha, Neb.
A big factor in that growth was Obama-era legislation that encouraged employers to automatically enroll new employees in retirement plans and use target-date funds as the default for those who don’t choose their own investments. Previously, investors who were inattentive—a notorious problem with workplace retirement plans—simply accumulated cash, which doesn’t provide enough growth to build a nest egg that will last for decades.
“It’s certainly a good thing” to use TDFs as the default, says Dennis Shirshikov, financial analyst at FitSmallBusiness.com, an advice service for small-business owners and managers. “This has brought a great deal of consistency to a retirement portfolio, especially since most investors with a 401(k) do not manage their investment actively.”
Another factor in TDF growth, Morningstar says, is the growing popularity of index investing as most TDFs invest in index funds, rather than actively managed funds. In 2017, 95% of new employee contributions to TDFs went to one relying on index funds, according to Morningstar.
Investors can buy target-date funds for their individual retirement accounts and taxable accounts, as well, and most big fund companies offer them. The biggest player is Vanguard Group with about $381 billion in TDF assets in 2017, 34% of the market, Morningstar says. Fidelity Investments had a 20.5% share, and the third-biggest player, T. Rowe Price , TROW 1.89% had a 14.9% share.
The downsides
Retirement experts have mixed views about TDFs’ value in a portfolio. Most say TDFs are better than not investing at all, or putting retirement savings in cash, but the funds can’t take into account each investor’s unique situation. Two investors the same age would get the same fund, even if they have different needs due to dependents, availability of other assets, life expectancy and risk tolerance.
“In an attempt to simplify planning and saving for retirement—certainly a noble endeavor—the entire concept of target-date funds likely is a bridge too far,” Prof. Johnson says. “Individuals are unique, and one parameter, the anticipated retirement date, cannot and should not dictate the appropriate asset-allocation mix and the change in that mix over time.”
Another concern: The automatic investing strategy ignores changing conditions. Patrick R. McDowell, investment analyst at Arbor Wealth Management in Miramar Beach, Fla., says low bond yields in recent years have reduced TDF income after the target date, and increased the risk of losses on bondholdings if rates rise. (Higher rates hurt bond values because investors favor newer bonds that pay more.)
What’s more, he says, stocks and bonds have often moved in tandem in recent years, reducing the benefit from diversification, which assumes one asset goes up when the other falls.
Know your rights
Retirement savers who are automatically put into TDFs have the right to switch to other funds in their retirement plan as they learn more or conditions change, and Mr. McDowell recommends that investors get more involved as retirement nears. He says he often recommends investors nearing retirement leave the target-date fund and buy a mix of stock and stable-value funds—which contain bonds insured against loss and are designed to preserve capital while generating returns similar to a fixed-income investment—to reduce danger from a potential market plunge.
Advisers urge investors to examine the TDF’s ‘glide path’—its investing policy for shifting from stocks to bonds over time. Photo: iStock
“In that strategy, a big drop in equity and fixed-income prices won’t hurt a soon-to-be retiree in the same way it would in a TDF strategy,” he says. “It also helps investors defend against a rising interest-rate scenario” harmful to bonds.
Experts say TDF investors should keep abreast of performance and not just assume they are on track to a comfortable retirement. Morningstar provides data on average performance by target date, as well as details on individual funds.

@hank Hank, your advice is extremely sensible. Sometimes its helpful to remind others about good, solid market strategies that hold up over time.
My issue is related to the last item you just mentioned, RISK TOLERANCE. A lot of investors think they can ride out a bear market (or even just a bad correction). But many of those investors turn out to be wrong. Investing is so emotional for many of us. Its hard to sit by and watch your Account Balance go down the tubes. Its easy to say "oh yeah, I can handle it". Hard to do.
As an official "chicken little", I've (incorrectly) gone to cash more often than I want to admit over the years. Though I am shy of my 50s, I am personally still all about preservation of capital. Combine this president, with his "Tariff policies", alongside a very, very long bull market...... and I am once again a "chicken little". I own some bonds, which also seem inflated but are riding a wave for now, and I will build up my VWINX holding, but I am mostly in CASH.
This time, it looks like I have an awful lot of company. I believe Cash was the best Asset class of 2018. Will it come in 1st again in 2019? Doubtful.
And so we gamble.
P.S. I'll keep at least one of my eyes wide open from now on.

Funny. I thought, from the header, that edible turkeys were the topic here. No capital "T." ...THAT'S why. No, I could not deliberately own Turkey these days. Erdogan is as bad or worse than the Trumpster. If there were a different planet I could move to and invest in, I'd choose it.

That depends on whether you want to support a fascist or not with your capital:
https://washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/06/25/erdogan/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.40604f7380a4
The question is when does investing in a regime become immoral to each individual investor? Would you own German or Japanese stocks in 1940, even if the return prospects were great? I don't buy the argument that politics or ethics don't matter in investing and that all that should matter is profits. Investors made a conscious choice to divest from South Africa during Apartheid for good reasons. How about a highly profitable manufacturer of Sarin gas or child pornographry? Where does one draw the line? Each must make his own ethical bed and sleep in it. I'm not saying these questions are easy or even have a universal answer, but they should be asked.

“Many investors seem braced for turbulence ahead and are in a defensive mode.”
Isn’t that always the case? We as investors tend to focus more on the potential for loss more than on longer term gains. You can go back 5 or 10 years and find people “going to cash”, “harvesting profits” or “adding some dry powder.” - Same old ... Same old ...
“The headline news seems so pessimistic.”
Journalism thrives on the “sensational”. That’s how they attract viewers, readers and clicks on their websites. But it’s not all bear case out there. Maybe we just pay more attention to the bears?
“Inverted yield curve” - Often a precursor of recession. Tends to lead by 6 months to a year. But in an era of “wacko” 2% on 10-year Treasuries, the invert may not be the reliable indicator of the past. Still, ignore it at your own peril.
“crashing oil prices ... “ Perfect example of media over-hype. Oil’s had a great run since it bottomed at $26 three years ago. So a 10% - 20% pullback is normal in any market.
“Chinese tariffs and their negative effects on corporate profits much less what happens if tariffs go in effect on Mexico” A tariff is (plain and simple) a tax - coming out of consumers’ pockets and going into government coffers. And, generally speaking, raising taxes quickly is a good way to tank an economy.
“But stocks remain resilient ...”
The Dow and S&P have gone nowhere in a year. And the NASDAQ is probably lower. But of course there are many winners that bucked the trend.
“junk bonds but 3/4% (0.75%) from all time highs”.
Tight spreads should be a warning that risk appetite is reaching dangerous levels. A better time to buy riskier bonds is when the spread is wider. @Junkster understands this better than I do.
“The later (narrow spreads) especially makes no sense if you believe all the experts who keep predicting the next crisis will come from that segment of the market.” To the contrary ... “reaching for yield“ is sometimes an indication of over-exuberance. Comes with the territory. However, the larger factor here may be the ridiculously low yields on investment grade debt. If you need income, there’s really no place to go but into higher yielding securities.
“rates have moved lower”
True. And 2% for locking-up your money for 10 years makes no sense unless you are factoring in a major economic slowdown and declining value for risk assets.
“the Fed is expected to lower Fed funds in July or September.”
Likely the Fed is reacting to the political arm-twisting. If they lower rates it should goose the economy for a bit longer. But could exacerbate the next downturn when it finally arrives.
“But isn’t that good news already baked into the bond market?”
Yep - The big money (often smart money) is usually a few steps ahead of the rest of us. And the data they have (can afford access to) far exceeds what you and I have at our disposal. Also, while insider trading is illegal, it’s not unheard of.
“I would think knowing how counterintuitive investing/trading can be that new highs may be ahead for the S&P. “
No way to tell. But unless you assume these indexes always reflect rational decision making executed by always rational investors (I don’t think they do) why dwell on where the index will be in six months?
“But this may be all mute with tomorrow’s employment report providing its usual fireworks ....”
You nailed that one. Bloomberg and the others are all over this story.
“... and providing more clarity”.
It’s hard for me to understand how one payroll report provides much clarity on anything. It might. But it might also just reflect the effect of weather on consumer spending in many parts of the country.

Feels like something's gotta give here, but then the markets turn around and give everybody the...uh..."nope" sign. Bonds feel inflated and stocks feel like they are hovering.
No real "bargains" out there right now.
Feels like this market is being propped up by the belief that Trump won't let it fall into a ditch before the 2020 elections (aka the "Trump Put"). Not sure that is something I'd hang my hat on. He loves him some Tariffs, and you can't have it both ways "Mr. president".

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelfoster/2019/06/01/3-big-dividends-the-irs-cant-touch/#14b8a0d2eb85
What if I told you I’d found a way to protect your portfolio from this twitchy market without giving up big gains (and income)?
My guess is you’d be interested—if a little skeptical.
VMO
Mub
Nim
Pml
Nad
mca