This thread is a followup to a bullpen post:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/40777/is-loss-aversion-a-myth
That post links to a column that in turn cites the paper that the Scientific American piece linked here is summarizing. How's that for circular references :-)
That column argues that loss aversion is still real, though it suggests a refinement to the concept.
My question is: if investors do not weigh losses more heavily than gains (i.e. are averse to losses), then why do so many people here keep looking at Sortino ratios and maximum draw downs? Why don't we have maximum gain data as well?
That's not a joke. I'm as concerned when a fund I have performs way out of line with my expectations on the upside as when it underperforms.
I owned a legacy fund that had originally been an income oriented sector fund that evolved into a respectable broad based large cap value fund. I had been considering selling it for a variety of reasons. What finally made me pull the trigger was one year when it wound up as the top performing LCV fund (can't verify, but M* says it was in the top 1%).
The fund was so volatile that even with top quartile returns for the past 3, 5, and 10 years, it had a 1* rating. Yet the last straw for me was the upside risk.
So, why all these biased metrics? Junk statistics, or do investors really care more about their risk of loss then their risk of gain?

Perhaps I should be a little clearer about the ACH issue. Have you ever tried to link an outside account to a brokerage account and gotten a message along the lines of: "can only link to a bank account"? I have, but it's very rare.
One wouldn't be able to link such an outside account to, say, Fidelity. Generally, though, there's no problem linking banks to Vanguard, or to Fidelity. I've even linked a Fidelity account to Vanguard.
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/accountservices/banking?lang=en
When using Schwab bank as a transfer point to external accounts, you'll have to transfer brokerage money to the bank. It's just that since it's all internal at Schwab, that transfer is very easy and fast.
The only thing special about Schwab's debit/ATM card vs. that at many brokerages (including TD Ameritrade) is that you get ATM rebates worldwide, not just in the US, and 0% foreign transaction fees. Most other cards (aside from Capital One) pass this charge through to you; Schwab absorbs it.

FYI: If you have any clients retiring today, and they’ve had money working for the past 40 years, large caps were their best bet. Ideally, large-cap growth.
With all due respect to small-cap enthusiasts, high-yield fanatics or gold bugs, large caps have dominated a rollicking good ride from the late 1970s to today. These funds powered through good times and bad: sky-high inflation, bull markets, crashes and irrational exuberance. There were low points along the way, of course. That’s why we added both the best, and worst, annual performances for each fund, in addition to the 40-year annualized average.
Spoiler alert, the worst year for each one was 2008, the year of the financial crisis. The best year for 11 of 20 of these funds was either 1979 or 1980. But before you get too envious of the days of disco, bear in mind that the 30-year mortgage rate reached 16% in 1980, according to numbers from FreddieMac.
To be sure, a lot of funds aren’t eligible for this list. Any fund launched in the past 40 years obviously won’t be here, impressive gains notwithstanding. The biggest case in point: There are no ETFs on this list because they’re too new for our time frame in this analysis. The first ETFs made their appearance on the scene in the early 1990s.
So which funds have posted the best performance for the past 40 years? Scroll through to see the top 20. All data is from Morningstar as of 12/31/2016.
Regards,
Ted
https://bic.financial-planning.com/slideshow/top-funds-for-the-past-40-years
FMAGX annual return since inception, 2/5/63, is 16.04%

With today's lower expected return environment, potential for rising interest rates, inflationary pressures and increasing volatility, it is critical for investors to maintain a well-designed allocation to alternatives that can help their portfolios weather uncertain markets," said Matthew Bass, head of global product strategy and alternatives business development at AllianceBernstein.
PRODUCTS
Assetmark launches 12 new portfolios
AssetMark announced 12 new portfolios coming to its platform, which the firm expects will drive higher returns.
"Dimensional Fund Advisors' robust investment process addresses a growing advisor need for low-cost, tax-efficient strategies," said David McNatt, senior vice president of product management and development at AssetMark.
The portfolios, known as AssetMark MarketDimensions, are aligned with six risk profiles to target investors in different life stages, says the firm.
Global X introduces new ETF family
Global X is releasing two new ETFs aimed at helping investors achieve a specific income level: the Global X TargetIncome 5 ETF (TFIV) and the Global X TargetIncome Plus 2 ETF (TFLT). They have expense ratios of 0.77% and 0.78%, respectively, according to Morningstar.
The funds were developed by Wilshire Associates. "We've structured indexes that aim to target specific yield objectives while mitigating risks," Jason Schwarz, president of Wilshire Analytics and Wilshire Funds Management, said in a statement.
TFIV will seek a 5% yield, net of fees, and TFLT will seek the current 10-year US Treasury note plus 2%, according to the firm, which expects the funds to pay distributions monthly.
Innovator launches ETF with structured outcomes
Innovator Capital Management listed the Innovator S&P 500 Defined Outcome ETF, which offers protection levels of 9%, 15% or 30% over a near one-year period, the firm said.
"No other ETFs in the market today seek to offer investors defined exposures to the S&P 500, where the downside protection level, upside growth potential and outcome period can all be known, prior to investing," said Innovator CEO Bruce Bond.

FYI: The popular idea that avoiding losses is a bigger motivator than achieving gains is not supported by the evidence.
Regards,
Ted
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-the-most-important-idea-in-behavioral-decision-making-is-a-fallacy/

More Sliced Turkey:

...to default on their debt obligations is one of the easiest ways in which the strong men defend their own positions, seemingly protect their peoples and show their independence from foreign influence.
Events in Turkey in the days and weeks ahead will finally expose the nature of emerging market risks in jurisdictions where there is no strong protection from a constitution to protect either citizens or capital.

Article by Russel Napier (through ZeroHedge):
https://zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-13/russell-napier-turkey-will-be-largest-em-default-all-time

I'd been holding these in my back pocket (meant to post, hadn't gotten around to it):
Ed Slott's column from a month ago:
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/irs-finally-says-back-door-roth-s-are-ok-39697.html
Yale Law and Policy Review, Spring 2017, Slam the Door: Why Congress Should End the Backdoor Roth IRA
https://ylpr.yale.edu/inter_alia/slam-door-why-congress-should-end-backdoor-roth-ira

Congress was aware at the time of the backdoor Roth IRA’s passage that it would not facilitate greater retirement savings, particularly for those households for which increasing savings is most critical. As Brookings Fellow Peter Orszag warned Congress in 2005, “[r]ather than bolstering retirement security among middle- and lower-earners, proposals to increase income and contribution limits would generate significant asset shifting and be of primary benefit to households who are already disproportionately well-prepared for retirement.”[31] Instead, the driving force behind the backdoor Roth IRA was the need to facilitate the extension of capital gains and dividends rate cuts.[32]

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1625654/000119312518248332/d583955d497.htm
497 1 d583955d497.htm TCW GARGOYLE HEDGED VALUE FUND
TCW Alternative Funds
TCW/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund – Class I and Class N
Supplement dated August 14, 2018 to
the Prospectus dated February 28, 2018 (the “Prospectus”)
Disclosure relating to TCW/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund
The Board of Trustees of TCW Alternative Funds (the “Trust”) has approved a Plan of Liquidation for the TCW/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund (the “Fund”), pursuant to which the Fund will be liquidated (the “Liquidation”) on or about September 27, 2018 (“Liquidation Date”). This date may be changed without notice at the discretion of the Trust’s officers.
Suspension of Sales. Effective the close of business on August 14, 2018, the Fund will no longer sell shares to new investors or existing shareholders, including through exchanges into the Fund from other funds of the Trust.
Mechanics. In connection with the Liquidation, any shares of the Fund outstanding on the Liquidation Date will be automatically redeemed as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date. The proceeds of any such redemption will be equal to the net asset value of such shares after the Fund has paid or provided for all of its charges, taxes, expenses and liabilities. The distribution to shareholders of these liquidation proceeds will occur as soon as practicable, and will be made to all shareholders of the Fund of record at the time of the Liquidation. Additionally, the Fund must declare and distribute to shareholders any realized capital gains and all net investment income no later than the final Liquidation distribution. TCW Investment Management Company LLC (“TIMCO”), investment advisor to the Fund, intends to distribute substantially all of the Fund’s net investment income and realized capital gains, if any, prior to the Liquidation. TIMCO will bear all expenses in connection with the Liquidation to the extent such expenses exceed the amount of the Fund’s normal and customary fees and expenses accrued by the Fund through the Liquidation Date, provided that such accrued amounts are first applied to pay for the Fund’s normal and customary fees and expenses.
Other Alternatives. At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders of the Fund may redeem their shares of the Fund and receive the net asset value thereof, pursuant to the procedures set forth under “Selling Shares” of “Your Investment – Account Policies and Services” in the Prospectus. Shareholders may also exchange their Fund shares for shares of the same class of any other fund of the Trust, as described in and subject to any restrictions set forth under “Exchanging Shares” of “Your Investment – Account Policies and Services” in the Prospectus.
U.S. Federal Income Tax Matters. For tax purposes, with respect to shares held in a taxable account, the automatic redemption of shares of the Fund on the Liquidation Date will generally be treated as any other redemption of shares (i.e., as a sale that may result in gain or loss for federal income tax purposes). Instead of waiting until the Liquidation Date, a shareholder may voluntarily redeem his or her shares prior to the Liquidation Date to the extent that the shareholder wishes to realize any such gains or losses prior thereto. See “Distributions and Taxes” in the Prospectus. Shareholders should consult their tax advisors regarding the tax treatment of the Liquidation.
If you have any questions regarding the Liquidation, please contact the Trust at 1-866-858-4338.
Please retain this Supplement with your Prospectus for future reference.

FYI: U.S. stocks halted a multiday tumble Tuesday, with the three main equity benchmarks advancing as Turkey’s currency slide abated, allowing investors to focus instead on a healthy domestic economy and strong corporate results. All 11 S&P Sectors were in the green with XLY up .97%.
The session, however, has been marked by seasonally light volume which can make benchmarks prone to volatile intraday moves, market participants said.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-13/asian-stocks-set-for-mixed-open-dollar-holds-gain-markets-wrap
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-st-gains-on-earnings-recovery-in-bank-stocks-idUSKBN1KZ19R
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/stocks-today-walgreens-mcdonalds-lead-dow-jones/
MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-look-set-to-pop-higher-as-global-markets-try-to-shake-off-turkish-tantrum-2018-08-14/print
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/14/us-markets-investors-shake-off-turkeys-economic-crisis.html
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/14/us-bonds-and-fixed-income-auction-data-and-turkey-crisis-in-focus.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/14/forex-euro-in-focus-as-lira-emerging-market-currencies-seen-vulnerab.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/14/oil-markets-saudi-cuts-output-but-looming-demand-slowdown-drags.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/14/gold-markets-focus-on-dollar-after-currency-touches-13-month-high.html
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures: Positive
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx
Quote

FYI: Billionaire investor David Einhorn, whose Greenlight Capital is posting some of the hedge fund industry’s worst returns, cut back several long-term holdings, including Apple Inc (AAPL.O), Voya Financial Inc (VOYA.N) and Consol Energy Inc (CEIX.N), a filing made on Tuesday shows.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-investments-funds/einhorns-greenlight-cuts-back-many-top-holdings-slices-apple-idUSKBN1KZ1K3

I've become rather disenchanted with bonds and consequently find the paper's arguments less than persuasive. In part because I question why, at least for long term investors, volatility should even matter. Long term a pure stock portfolio wins out; even over "just" a decade, stocks win out around 80% of the time.
In part, because bonds have done worse than the graphic suggests. A common complaint with the US aggregate bond index is that it is heavily weighted toward federal bonds. They have significantly less risk. In 2008 "Lower-risk Treasury-backed debt whipped most fixed-income categories, while company-issued bonds and more daring overseas debt suffered a similarly grim fate as stocks."
This is not to suggest that bonds have near the risk of stocks, simply that the numbers don't tell the full story.
If you're investing for income, then you're investing behind the "efficient frontier", which is okay. But I'm more interested in total earnings, whether that comes from coupons or dividends or capital gains.
I do agree that bonds can serve a very useful role if you "must meet an expense at a particular time in the future. " For that, see bond immunization. The simplest form of immunization is just buying a zero bond that matures when you need the money. No reinvestment risk, and bond (as opposed to cash) rate of return.
In one sense, absence of reinvestment risk makes zeros less risky than coupon bonds. Sure there's the risk that rates will rise and you'll be stuck with your low YTM zero. However, coupon bonds have a similar risk - you're still stuck with the bond paying low coupons. That is somewhat mitigated by the fact that you are getting cash out (interest payments) that you can reinvest at a higher rate, if rates rise. But if rates fall instead of rise, you lose because you reinvest those interest payments at lower rates. That's the reinvestment risk.
Regarding not knowing markup: at least for munis, there's EMMA. Enter a CUSIP in the search box here, and you get not only real time trades, but information about the type of trade (inter-dealer, customer buy, customer sell), that let's you estimate markups in real time as well. Different markups by different dealers.

>> To be clear, Vanguard isn’t predicting a recession; it is merely saying that the odds of one have risen. ... “You could also say the chance of a recession not occurring by the end of 2020 are 60 to 70 percent,” ....
Yawn. Be prepared. Etc. Okay, sure.

... I personally have decided to use the S&P 500 and stop further in depth allocations such as much discussed finer granular reits, mlp's, utilities etc. S&P500 contains all of the aforementioned within the index. ... The argument can be made for more granularity outperforming the S&P500, but i will live with the simple solution. I like the fact mutual funds can easily reinvest dividends/cap gains if needed while some ETF's cannot (easily). I also like the fact that by the nature of the SP500 index it gradually picks the winners for me and discards the losers. just my 2c.

Hi shipwreckedandalone,
Thanks for commenting. (Worth a lot more than 2c). All valid points. It’s not clear to me whether this represents a portion of your total invested assets or all of them. I suspect it’s the former. That said, I don’t think the argument for real estate or any other granular asset class rests only on maximizing return. There may be other considerations like diversifying assets (and hopefully mitigating risk), increasing income stream, hedging against the unexpected (rampant inflation, depression, war, tax law changes, etc.)
If I were age 25-40 and gainfully employed I’d be inclined to put 100% into growth (even possibly the S&P 500) and let her ride come Hell or high-water. A single fund (2 or 3 at most) would work fine. Even at age 40-50 that might make sense - but would require a stronger risk appetite. At 70 or older (with perhaps a 20-year life expectancy I believe an all-growth portfolio foolhearty, unless one is trying to build assets for posterity (estate planning). In that case, long as your own funding is assured for your lifetime, a 100% growth portfolio might still make sense.
To glean an appreciation of how much a 100% S&P 500 investment can fall in a relatively short time we need go back hardly more than a single decade (from Wikepedia): “The US bear market of 2007–2009 was a 17-month bear market that lasted from October 9th 2007 to March 9th 2009, during the financial crisis of 2007-2009. The S&P 500 lost approximately 50% of its value.”
Now - to sit still and endure the pain for 17 consecutive months while watching your total investment egg fall by 50% takes a great deal of intestinal fortitude. And, remember that on March 8, 2009 after 17 months of free-fall, there was no guarantee the market would reverse direction. History has taught that these downturns can persist for much longer. If an index can tumble 50% in 17 months ... it can just as easily fall 60 or 70% over a longer time. No law says it has to stop at 50%. (It’s likely real estate fared even worse during that period.)
In a nutshell, it depends a great deal on your life situation and ability to endure punishment. I think all of us could do a better job relating our age and years to / into retirement when discussing our allocations. One size does not fit all. Such understanding might benefit the younger newbies - if any.
PS: Just my humble mumble. I am not a qualified advisor. Other points of view welcomed.

FYI: The chances of a recession by the end of 2020 are mounting. And the prospects for the American stock market in the next decade have worsened appreciably.
Those are prognoses, not facts. But they’re not just offhand projections, either. They are the sober assessments of Vanguard, the $5 trillion asset management firm. And they suggest that the current good times may amount to a reprieve: an opportunity to make sure that you are prepared for a storm.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/business/vanguard-recession-economy.html

I have gone round and round though the years about the issue of how granular a portfolio should be. I think a REIT allocation is probably good, however I personally have decided to use the S&P 500 and stop further in depth allocations such as much discussed finer granular reits, mlp's, utilities etc. S&P500 contains all of the aforementioned within the index so I will stop there. The SP500 holds 3% reits and utilities so good enough for me. The argument can be made for more granularity outperforming the S&P500, but i will live with the simple solution. I like the fact mutual funds can easily reinvest dividends/cap gains if needed while some ETF's cannot (easily). I also like the fact that by the nature of the SP500 index it gradually picks the winners for me and discards the losers. just my 2c.

Waiting for the cheesy headlines: Weed Stocks Go to Pot or Pot Gains Up in Smoke.

Thanks all for the thoughtful answers, it is most appreciated.
I have been following along this past year, listening to you comments.
To be clear, I am looking through my funds to raise some cash as a defensive move.
Capital preservation is my primary goal at this point -I do not have a need for income.

Part of the "process" in taxable accounts:
Try to:
- Hold tax efficient funds such as index funds
- Hold funds and etfs that have low turnover ratio
- Avoid holding (bond & stock) funds, etfs, and stocks that throw off a lot of short term gains (these are not tax efficient)
- Hold individual stocks for the long term...Long term capital gains and inheriting stock at their stepped up basis...both positives for taxable accounts
- Treat your temporary losers as an opportunity to tax loss harvest their losses...this will offset gains for many years if losses are large enough to "carry over".
I'm sure there are many more...

So you have read and studied the fact sheet along with understanding that it is a dividend strategy fund? It seeks to invest in the highest dividend companies and employees the Dogs of the Dow strategy for about one third of invested assets ... and, the other two thirds is invested choosing high yielding stocks from the broader market. Below is what Sun America states as to the funds objective.
Fund Objective: Seeks total return (including capital appreciation and current income) by employing a “buy and hold” strategy involving the annual selection of up to 30 high dividend yielding common stocks from the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) and broader market.
In addition, Morningstar rates its sustainability to be in the top two percent of its category. My own experience is that it has performed well, in the past, during market downdrafts. Will it continue to do that? Most likely; but, there are no guarantees when it comes to investing.
In checking the funds holdings (again at Morningstar) I am finding its two largest holdings one being Macy's is up ytd 61.35% and the other Darden Restruants is up 16.53%. You might wish to view the Morningstar report on the fund's portfolio holdings while performing your due diligence as it will give you a list of its top holdings along with their year to date returns.
I am not going to debate the attributes of the fund or defend it. It one of three funds that I hold in my domestic equity sleeve found in the growth and income area of my portfolio. The other two funds held within this sleeve are American Funds Fundamental Investor (ANCFX) and Federated Strategic Value Dividend (SVAAX).
Again, I wish you well in doing your due diligence.
I'm thinking if you have great concerns with the fund then perhaps it might not be for you. But, again I'm happy with it for it has generated a good income stream since I have owned it (and now being in retirement that is important to me) paying out last year about $2.00 per share in dividends and capital gains distributions combined. That computes to better than a 10% distribution yield. Plus its ten year (full market cycle) rolling total return is 12.82% putting it in the top one percent for its category.
And again, if you are not happy with it perhaps you will find something more to your liking.

I am loathe to take the gains if its prudent not too, SO aim looking to see where I might lighten up . Any opinion on BPIRX or YAFIX ?