“Hats-off” to Charles Lynn Bolin for his exceptional article: ”Asset Allocation and Withdrawal Strategies in Retirement” in the January issue of The Observer. In early December, returning home from a short trip to Florida, I hastily tossed up a thread - ”New Report: All Stock Portfolio Beats Stock and Bond Mix Over Time (Originally From Bloomberg)” while awaiting a connection at Chicago’s O’Hare. Time was short. I had no idea the thread would garner so many insightful comments from board members - let alone become the genesis for a future article in The Observer.
Charle’s article is so comprehensive and rich in documentation that any attempt to summarize or characterize it by me seems futile. He begins by linking to the thread, followed by a listing of a dozen or so different aspects of the study’s premise as identified by discussion participants. This is followed by literally reams of historical data. In essence, he’s trying to identify the “right balance” among risk, time span, relative asset performance over different time periods, withdrawal strategies, etc.
While stocks have beaten other investments over the past 130 years, Charles notes that most of us have a somewhat shorter investment horizon. And he identifies some potentially more reasonable risk-averse approaches: ”To illustrate the benefits of having a balanced portfolio, from 1999 until 2020, the conservative Vanguard Wellesley (VWINX) and moderate Vanguard Wellington (VWELX) have beaten the S&P 500. This illustrates the importance of starting and ending points – sequence of return risk. A high allocation of stocks in 1999 could have impacted savings for the remainder of retirement.”
Finally, Charles outlines his own investment allocation and approach, which includes modifying his equity exposure (within a set range) from time to time based on his read of market conditions.

Barron’s Subtitle: “The Market’s Gains Won’t Come Easy From Here”
This is the first of two sessions. This year’s participants are: John W. Rogers Jr., Todd Ahlsten, Meryl Witmer, Rajiv Jain, Mario Gabelli, Scott Black, David Giroux, Sonal Desai, William Priest, Henry Ellenbogen, Abby Joseph Cohen.
It’s an insightful free-wheeling discussion. Short on specific buy recommendations but an exhaustive look at how investing is likely to be affected by domestic / geopolitics (in the broadest sense) along with the economic backdrop. Most foresee a flat to down year for U.S. equities. David Giroux expects a range of +5% / -5% this year - but looking out 5 years sees annual returns in the 6.5% area. He wasn’t too explicit, but seemed to be referencing his own fund (PRWCX) which he termed a “balanced” fund.
Giroux’s list of “likes” is long (excerpt): ”We see good value in managed care, life-sciences tools, utility stocks, and waste. We still see good value in companies like Microsoft, Intuit, and Salesforce, which has a low valuation … we are seeing good value in energy now as some supply-and-demand dynamics have changed.” And he’s still likes “high quality high yield bonds” (The latter struck me as a bit of an oxymoron.)
Graham Holdings (GHC) was recommended strongly by Witmer. Others joined in and much time was devoted to its numerous components including broadcasting, education and health care. It hurt a bit because I recently unloaded this one after what I thought was a nice run-up. Knowing when to sell a stock is a skill that escapes me. Deere (DE) is another stock that received favorable comment.
Participants noted that the economists / market prognosticators were nearly 100% wrong a year ago when recession was widely seen as “baked in the cake” and the market appeared headed for another bad year. Someone quipped that every year one of them says “It’s a stock picker’s market.” (When isn’t it?) Much was said of the approaching U.S. election and mostly with foreboding. One of the “optimists” (Witmer) predicted the U.S. will somehow “muddle through” without significant damage. Some think the markets will rebound late in the year after the election. The eternal optimism of Buffett and Templeton were noted in this regard. But the general feeling was far from optimistic. Most (if not all) find big cap valuations too rich, while small cap value is greatly undervalued. “De-globalization” is seen by some as a headwind, reducing efficiencies and adding costs for consumers. Franklin’s Sonal Desai says the “real interest rate” (inflation +) is in the 4-5% range - much above what the market currently assumes - implying rates will rise by year’s end.
Really recommend this article!

Than there’s Mario Gabelli in this week’s Barron’s who, after citing a litany of ominous signs, including budget deficits and a recent 50% drawdown in the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, shrugs them off and says:
”But what does it matter? Short-termism is prevalent as algorithms, momentum investing, and exchange-traded funds influence trading. The Dow industrials will be the equivalent of 1,000,000 in 40 years and was under 1,000 about 40 years ago. So, invest long term.”
Gabelli’s point is later reaffirmed by Henry Ellenbogen (no investing lightweight):
“I agree with Mario: You have to take a long-term view and be positive on the prospects for the U.S. The agility and ability of the American business sector is like nothing else in the world”.
-
Excerpts from: ”The Market’s Gains Won’t Come Easy From Here, Barron’s Roundtable Pros Say. 8 Stocks for Now.” Barron’s January 15, 2024

For what interest it holds, I have a phone call coming up with Ms Geritzto talk about what she takes away from this experience and how she's thinking about the firm's next steps.
In some ways it's a classic "not quite enough" story. The performance pattern is exactly what you wanted to see in a risk conscious fund. In years when the market was up (2019, 2020, 2021) this fund generally posted double digit returns. In periods when the market was down this fund generally protected better than its peers.
The exception was the past 12 months when it lagged in both directions.
Since inception the fund has returned 2.5% annually (against 4.7% for its Lipper peer group) but has substantially better standard deviation, downside deviation, down market deviation and Ulcer Index than its peers. But the fund trailed so dramatically in 2019 and 2023 that it became untenable.

John Rekenthaler has been discussing some recent research that shows that Jeremy "Stocks for the Long Run" Siegel might, perhaps, have been relying on some selective, flawed and limited data. Siegel says that, in the long run, stocks have a 6.9% annualized real return. Scholars who did some of the hard archaeological work (for example, going through 19th century newspapers issue by issue to reconstruct the fate of long-dead stocks which aren't reflected in Siegel's data) find that the dominance of stocks is more limited, and more time dependent, than Siegel's faith would lead us to accept.
Nothing here is a definitive rejection of the pro-equity argument. More, it offers a heads up that it's entirely possible that stocks will lag and bonds will lead ... oh, between now and 2050?
JR's closing from today's essay:

The case for the ongoing dominance of stock is less overwhelming than we once believed. That observation bears consideration, especially for retirees tempted by advice that they invest heavily in equities. Such counsel is not necessarily wrong, depending upon individual circumstances (in particular, wealth levels), but it often is coupled with the implicit assumption that stocks will inevitably beat bonds over the long term.
Maybe. If not, though, retirees do not get a second bite at the financial apple. That lesson is very much worth pondering.
Note: When I sent Professor McQuarrie (Edward McQuarrie of Santa Clara University) the reader’s comment (NB: someone responded to JR's first essay on the subject by pointing out that mortality rates from surgery fell, and fell permanently so perhaps all of that old stuff from long ago reflects an age now forever past), he forwarded me the following response:
“My take is in the article’s title. Sometimes stock returns will soar far above bond returns, as after the war. That outperformance can be sustained for decades. Other times stocks will lag bonds, for decades. There’s no rhyme or reason to it, and in all likelihood, no predictability over the individual investor’s limited time horizon of several decades.
“As for your reader’s clever riposte, here is my redo: ‘The rate of death from disease and epidemics stayed at a relatively high and constant level from 1793 to 1920. Then advances in modern medicine fundamentally and permanently altered the trajectory ... or so it seemed until COVID-19 hit in February 2020.’”

For what interest it holds.

I don't need (or want) an FA to invest for me, thankfully.
My Schwab FA came over from TDA. He treated me very well over the years in terms of customer service and we stay in touch very periodically to opine about the markets ... he has never pushed anything my way as a recommendation other than to gently note (back then) that I had a 'large cash pile' he thought could be better used. Also once he got to know me, he gave me direct access to some planning tools that he used to help his other clients, which I appreciated.*
When we first met I told him my ground rules for a FA/broker: I'm self-directed, so while you can always recommend, don't be pushy. For 14-ish years, he's been exactly what I asked him to be. (The same applies to the FA for my long-long term account at WF, where we go back over 20 years)
By contrast, the guy I was initially assigned from Schwab kept reaching out via email or phone, and once my TD guy also got onboarded at Schwab, I dropped him so we could reconnect and continue the relationship.
* He appreciated that while I was very eager to leave TD once the merger was announced, I didn't transfer my TD account to Schwab in 2020 until after the TD FA evaluations were completed, b/c I didn't want him to have a noticeable loss of AUM on his book during the post-merger analysis of internal folks.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1537140/000158064224000163/rondure-overseas_497.htm
497 1 rondure-overseas_497.htm 497
Rondure Overseas Fund
Investor Class - ROSOX
Institutional Class - ROSIX
(a series of Northern Lights Fund Trust III)
Supplement dated January 9, 2024 to
the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated October 20, 2023
The Board of Trustees of Northern Lights Fund Trust III (the “Board”) has concluded that it is in the best interests of the Rondure Overseas Fund (the “Fund”) and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on or about February 8, 2024 (“Redemption Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments, will no longer pursue its stated investment objective, and will begin liquidating its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. Any required distributions of income and capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash.
Prior to or on the Redemption Date, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Shares” section in the Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, a redemption is subject to tax on any taxable gains. Please refer to the “Tax Status, Dividends and Distributions” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO THE REDEMPTION DATE WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund at 1-855-775-3337.
This Supplement, and the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated October 20, 2023, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund at 1-855-775-3337.

Sorry if I’m being unclear. Here is what happened step by step.
On Thursday, 1/4, I sold $20K in another fund. Fidelity website reported that the sale went through at the closing price Thursday, and that my account had $20,000 cash available to trade,
I went ahead and placed orders to reinvest $10K each in two funds, PRCFX and FMSDX. I received an email from Fidelity acknowledging both orders on Friday morning. The Fidelity fund purchase settled without a hitch at the closing price on Friday, as expected. The trade for PRCFX was listed as “settlement pending” on Friday and throughout the weekend. Purchase did not occur until closing price on Monday, so I missed market gains I should have received if purchase had occurred on Friday.
My issue is that, in the past, if I bought shares in an NTF fund with available cash on a given day, my purchase price was the closing price on that day. Always. So I lost $62 in potential gains. Not a huge amount of money, but I’ve never had this happen before. I’ll talk to someone at Fidelity for clarification. I’m sure that in the fine print it says that transactions can sometimes take longer.

FYI, I purchased shares in PRCFX 12/8/23 and 1/4/24 through Fidelity. Both transactions took 3-4 days to settle. I’ve never had a fund purchase take so long to settle since I’ve been doing transactions online. I plan to speak to someone at Fidelity about the reasons for this, as I missed at least one day of gains. I don’t know if the transaction would have been delayed so long if conducted at the TRP website, but I haven’t encountered such problems with other third party fund purchases at Fidelity. This is something that others might want to be aware of if considering this fund.

Glad you told us about that! Stinky, maybe even poopy, too. I do all my trades at TRP. They are "threatening" to put forward a website upgrade. Oh Joy! Oh Rapture! TRP fund entry minimums are $2,500.00. All others require an initial $5,000.00.

FYI, I purchased shares in PRCFX 12/8/23 and 1/4/24 through Fidelity. Both transactions took 3-4 days to settle. I’ve never had a fund purchase take so long to settle since I’ve been doing transactions online. I plan to speak to someone at Fidelity about the reasons for this, as I missed at least one day of gains. I don’t know if the transaction would have been delayed so long if conducted at the TRP website, but I haven’t encountered such problems with other third party fund purchases at Fidelity. This is something that others might want to be aware of if considering this fund.

Dear friends,
We're back after the long drive to and from upstate New York to visit family. One of the great joys of visiting is getting to go home again, if not to sanity then at least to the sort of insanity you're most accustomed to!
The January issue features discussions of two funds that we've touched on before. Standpoint has posted really startling numbers, beating pretty much all of its likely peers in both raw and risk-adjusted returns. I suppose you could say that all markets favor some strategies and the test comes when the market turns, but it sort of feels like the market has already done a series of 180s and they're still chugged along. And One Rock is the sort of fund that makes me scratch my head and go "huh?" Jeff seems like a remarkably good and humble guy with a very '90s investing style. Huge gains, nearly-as-huge volatility and very restricted access. In some ways I'm most impressed by the fact that he knows most of his investors and he's seen slow steady inflows (with the exception of one month) in good times and bad.
Devesh offered a lovely reflection and insightful commentary on what works and what's working. Lynn did the thing that Lynn does so well. Likewise, Shadow whose most immediately useful note might concern the reopening of Virtus KAR Small.
I'm hopeful that the piece on ESG held together for you. As you know it started as a post on the board but grew as I kept grinding through the data. Really, the argument that ESG investing require you to sacrifice either raw returns or risk-adjusted returns is, so far as I can tell, completely unsupported by the data. Some ESG funds are utterly rank and scammy ... as are some index funds, some small cap ETFs, and many of the new offerings that sound like desperate attempts to suck in people who have investing in the same mental box as "Call of Duty" and fantasy football.
Wishing you a joyful start to the year,
David

So T-bills are in special category different from regular stock and fund sales.
T-bills are in a special category different from regular and muni bond sales. Bonds have their own rules dealing with appreciation. Unless bond appreciation is de minimus (under 1/4% per year), it is taxed as ordinary income (even for munis, except for OID).
Q: If I anticipate a sizable capital gain on the sale of an investment during the year, do I need to make a quarterly estimated tax payment during the tax year?
You can make substantially equal estimates or you can file Form 2210 Schedule AI (annualized income) to account for uneven income throughout the year. I've used that in the past for large 4th quarter Roth conversions, cap gains distributions, fund sales, etc.
You have to keep track of your income by period (Jan-March, April-May, June-Aug, Sept-Dec) and work through the tax liability for each quarter. In recent years before 2023 it wasn't worth the effort because interest rates were so low. Little interest income was lost in paying equal estimates.
2022 IRS pages:
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f2210.pdf (Form 2210)
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i2210.pdf (Instructions)
Also, taxpayers are not required to file a 4th quarter estimate if they file their tax return including amount due by January 31st.

@SecretAgent - My issue with Matthews was an investment with MAPIX. I owned it for more than 7 years, and it still lost money. I’m a buy and hold investor, and didn’t realize all of the turmoil going on at Matthews — managers leaving, manager changes, etc. They changed the manager of MAPIX, who changed its investment style significantly— and it went from a top performing fund to the bottom of the barrel. It made significant gains the first few years that I owned it, and then cratered. All of this happened after the management changes. My fault, I guess, for not keeping abreast. Apparently, a lot of their top managers quit.

So T-bills are in special category different from regular stock and fund sales.
IRS:
Q: If I anticipate a sizable capital gain on the sale of an investment during the year, do I need to make a quarterly estimated tax payment during the tax year?
Answer:
Generally, you must make estimated tax payments
https://www.irs.gov/faqs/estimated-tax/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc

As I wrote above, even taking state income taxes into account, T-bills purchased a year ago didn't beat RPHYX, let alone RPHIX, after taxes. Though the numbers do work out differently if you're in the 32% or higher federal bracket.
There is another tax factor to consider: when are taxes due? Interest from 52 week T-bills purchased at the beginning of January 2023 is not taxed until April 2025. That is, all the income is taxed as 2024 income. RPHIX pays periodic dividends, so divs from Jan 2023, Feb 2023, ..., Dec 2023 are all taxed in April 2024.
That's a point in favor of T-bills assuming you purchased T-bills in 2023 that still haven't matured.
Delving even deeper into tax differences, for 2023 RPHIX had a twelve month distribution yield of 5.08% and a total return of 5.87%. That means that only 5.08% is subject to taxes now. The rest of the return is unrealized appreciation. That isn't taxed this coming April, and might not be taxed for years. And when it is, it will be taxed on the federal level at a cap gains rate.
That's a point in favor of RPHIX.
People had lots of reasons to choose T-bills over RPHYX / RPHIX: I wanted more certainty, I wouldn't make that much less with T-bills because of tax issues, I would have to hold the shares for 60+ days to avoid a short term fee, I wanted to diversify/split my bets, etc. Add to that: I couldn't buy shares because the fund was not open a year ago.
Hindsight tells us what we could have done. What matters is what we can do now. RPHYX / RPHIX has reopened to new investors. So there are even more people facing this conundrum now. :-)

RiverPark is known here for some of its subadvised funds (RPHIX, RSIIX) and those are in the news here. But the firm itself has had issues with turnovers & AUM losses.
M* on RLSFX
"Co-founder and co-chief investment officer Mitch Rubin departed the firm in November 2022 on the heels of weak performance across the firm’s equity strategies. Meanwhile, RiverPark’s assets under management has declined 35% since December 2020 as outflows across most of its products have been persistent in recent years. As of March 2023, the firm’s AUM was USD 2.4 billion, 70% of which was in its two subadvised funds, including its largest fund, RiverPark Short Term High Yield. According to CEO and co-founder Morty Schaja, the firm intends to draw upon the research resources of equity subadvisor Wedgewood, where the firm owns a roughly 2% minority interest. It will take some time to assess how this collaboration will work and what impact it may have.
Other attributes of the firm are mixed. Across the board, the firm’s mutual fund fees remain high, though that is in part a function of their comparatively small size. But Schaja has invested more than USD 1 million in five of the six funds RiverPark offers, and he has broadened ownership of the firm to include other employees, which often helps retain personnel. Indeed, the firm has shown stability in the investment analyst ranks."
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/rlsfx/parent

This thread has gone in an interesting direction.
I have been trying to consolidate the IRA to simplify it in case of the sort of stuff that seems more likely to happen as I get older. But I need more help from Mr. Market to get out of some positions. :).
I have temporarily consolidated the taxable by getting rid of a lot of Vanguard indexes. At the time I sold I decided that I would sit out the market until the next budget standoff and the recovery from holidaze hangovers sets in. Time will tell if I missed out.
I don't mind small positions for the taxable. If they can be left alone, they can turn out alright. And it is my hope to leave them alone. I don't find that they need a lot thinking about, or managing. I do sort of keep an eye on them the way I keep an eye on the trees I have planted.
I don't feel the need to buy the 500. I own tech funds instead. They have been the main driver of growth in that index for many years. But why multiple tech funds? They each do something different. So I think of them as a basket. The techs are FSCSX, TDV, and CSGZX.
I've pretty much stopped paying attention to Lipper and M* labels. The weighting box is still somewhat useful. More useful still are MFO premium and the overlap tool at etfrc.com. So I'm not concerned that I have too much mid cap value because I own PEY and SYLD--two different theses resulting in very little overlap. It is the theses that I am buying. That the weights ends up where they do is not really a factor in my decision to buy.

(Snip)
2024 will determine whether I stick with PSTL. David Sherman warned about share dilution in the REIT sector, and that DID happen in '23. Very attractive dividend, though, and lots of room for growth.
9% undervalued. (Morningstar.)
1-year return: +6.74%.
Price/Cash Flow 10.37%
Yield: 6.52%. Payout ratio: 728.85% is NUTS. What gives with that?

@Crash, payout ratio uses “dividends” divided by GAAP earnings.
The best measure of “earnings” (or distributable cash flow) for REITs (due to accounting rules like depreciation etc. which don’t affect cash flow) is funds from operation/adjusted funds from operation (FFO/AFFO)….a quick Google search found PSTL’s AFFO is $1.01, with a distribution of 95 cents. That’s a mid 90’s% payout ratio, which doesn’t allow much retained capital for growth (meaning debt or equity issuance will be required for growth).
Sorry if you know all of this! :)
Happy New Year

A good explanation. Thank you!
EDIT to add: Just remembered that REITS are REQUIRED to pay-out something like 90% of profits, yes? So, then......

(Snip)
2024 will determine whether I stick with PSTL. David Sherman warned about share dilution in the REIT sector, and that DID happen in '23. Very attractive dividend, though, and lots of room for growth.
9% undervalued. (Morningstar.)
1-year return: +6.74%.
Price/Cash Flow 10.37%
Yield: 6.52%. Payout ratio: 728.85% is NUTS. What gives with that?

@Crash, payout ratio uses “dividends” divided by GAAP earnings.
The best measure of “earnings” (or distributable cash flow) for REITs (due to accounting rules like depreciation etc. which don’t affect cash flow) is funds from operation/adjusted funds from operation (FFO/AFFO)….a quick Google search found PSTL’s AFFO is $1.01, with a distribution of 95 cents. That’s a mid 90’s% payout ratio, which doesn’t allow much retained capital for growth (meaning debt or equity issuance will be required for growth).
Sorry if you know all of this! :)
Happy New Year

Ahh, the age-old difference in opinion on how many positions are ideal in a portfolio. Many go for the perceived (index like?) comfort of volume and others can be decisive and have less holdings. Personally, I do think having many or "toe hold" positions can lead to more in-and-out decisions and therefore reduced return. I, admittedly and begrudgingly, tend to go both ways. I feel very comfortable with a few balanced funds making up the bulk of my portfolio. On the other hand, do I need 3 SC funds and 3 LC's? No. But I can be undeceived at times. If I can exist with ~15 funds, I'm feeling pretty good about myself.

I don’t think it’s about “making more” or how many is the “best number”. Might be if someone trades too much as @MikeM says. I just think it’s a lot easier to hold a few large equally weighted positions. (Obviously stocks would need to be in smaller amounts). I got tired of the hassle and associated tracking / record keeping / trading a large inventory requires. As for specific funds, I have opportunities today I never dreamed of while largely parked at TRP. So it hasn’t been hard at all settling on a few I think I understand well and am willing to sink 10% into.
It’s never “set in cement”. If you have 10% in a somewhat aggressive fund that’s done well for a while - maybe shift the 10% into a similar but more conservative fund to protect the gains. Conversely, if some area of investments (equities, commodities, bonds) falls sharply, you might want to shift that 10% into a more aggressive holding to take advantage of lower valuations.
No. I don’t believe there’s any “right” number of funds. A lot of ways to skin a cat!