Even more wise as it removes the necessary explanations

Ultra wise if you want to remove irrelevant I told you so when things don't go to plan.

I'm actually legitimately curious where the equity bears are putting their money. I'm always looking to diversify. But I think a large cash position today is a huge mistake.

And I don't mind the "I told you sos"... having never been wrong in a costly way in my investing/trading career I could probably use a reality check.

Those can be useful to do. I presume that you have at least someone you trust who you allow to double check your ideas.

Come on now. There is nothing better than me being down 20% in a day and someone tossing salt in my wounds. You should try it.

I'm familiar with the strategies of a few multi asset funds. They're at the lower end of their target range for equities and have allocations to bonds, protective options, gold, gold mining equities and various less liquid stuff.

Yeah, they have targets and can't afford to sit on cash (and can't justify charging a fee while they sit on cash).

A pretty useless graph for making any decision.

P/E is high so return is low? Thank you Caption Obvious.

Now that graph don't even state what the dots are and don't even account for interest rate and inflation. When inflation and interest rate>10% it is pretty obvious that investors will demand that P/E <10. During chaos P/E will go down as well but the last 20 years it was relatively peaceful.

"You are here" lol like we don't know return will be low when interest rate is like 2%.

If you can make prediction on interest rate and inflation that would be much more useful than this useless graph.

You can also have made an extremely risky bet with low P/E and just happened to have luck on your side.
If you want low P/E there are emerging markets for you. There is plenty of stocks in China that have single digit P/E.

IWD iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
Total Return (%)
1 yr 3yr 5yr
13.55 8.26 13.78

P/E Ratio as of Aug 08, 2017
18.15

EFV iShares MSCI EAFE Value ETF
total Return (%)
1yr 3yr 5yr
24.72 -0.79 7.87

P/E Ratio
as of Aug 08, 2017
15.24

Not exactly low PE's, but not in the "you are here" part of the graph, either.

You probably aren't comparing like with like.

Not trying to compare like with like. I'm also looking at a single year, not a 10 year average. But these don't seem extraordinarily expensive to me.

What's the difference between "average balance" and "average available balance" on my bank statement (checking account if it matters)? They're different amounts, so clearly calculated differently, but how/why? Google has failed me. 99% sure there's no minimum balance requirement which is the only thing I can think of that would explain the difference.

There's money that hasn't cleared yet from a check deposit or wire or whatever and your bank puts a hold on it

Thanks!

Y the inverted yield curve predicted the 2000 and 2007 recessions. Once we hit parity watch for a recession and equity market top. Puru Saxena who drew my attention to this was predicting yield curve parity by the end of next Spring.
http://www.investopedia.com/news/inv...ide-recession/

I'm looking to find a home for some money that will likely be a down payment for a house in 2-6 years. I spoke with a financial advisor and he advised that I put roughly 25% into ETFs of my choosing and 75% into this bond fund (is that split too conservatively?):

https://www.pimco.ca/en-ca/investmen...a-cad-unhedged

Clearly the fund has performed very well over its 6.5 year lifespan. I don't expect those returns going forward, but am I foolish to conclude this is a good investment? I could see many of you preferring ETFs because of their lack of fees, but is this bond fund a reasonable, conservative alternative or just a fish play?

Also, any recommendations for selecting ETFs? I've been advised to pick 3-5 that are fairly representative of the global market, with emphasis on the Canadian (domestic) market. Should I just browse Vanguard and make a decision or are some better suited towards my situation than others?

2-6 years is VERY short term. Unless you don't really care about your short-term plans ("meh, buying a house in 20 years is pretty much the same as buying one in 2 years")...

****, you aren't really going to listen about variance, so just do whatever you feel like doing.

Why do you say this? I'm interested in your opinion if you want to share.

I know that I would ideally invest this money for longer (and it might work out that way), but does that mean I shouldn't bother investing at all? I'm currently invested in money markets that barely beat inflation so I was looking for a relatively safe way to improve upon those returns.

Stocks have huge variance compared to their expected returns. It wouldn't be unusual for you to check how your investments are doing in a couple of years to find that you now had half as much as what you started with.

IMO, you should be putting money for the long haul in risky assets (adding over time as you have the income to do so), and keep money you will need for the shorter-term in less risky (or riskless) assets. There isn't much of a reason for you not to do both.

I looked at that bond fund you linked, the fees are really high, like 2.5% a year. On the other hand, it has returned 6.5% a year that last 5 years. On the other other hand, I don't know anything about Canadian bond funds, so I have no idea if that is good. I know the duration is reasonably short, so I have no idea how they are juicing the return.
You are taking some risk with this fund, if rates sky rocket, but I would take the plunge.
I'd probably find some Vanguard equivalent in Canada, rather than go through an advisor.

Agree with Brian. In my life, I've always just put money in a 401k, DCA monthly into a mutual fund, and let money accumulate in my checking account. If I got too much money in my checking account, I either spent it or put it in a mutual fund. When I bought my first house, I put like 5% down. When I bought my second house, I used the profit from the sale of the first house. If I wanted a car, I put some down and then paid it off in about 6 equal payments.
Maybe its just me, or the fact housing in my area isn't 10X salary on average, but I never saw a big reason to ear mark this investment for this purchase. I think doing that leads to overly conservative investing, because
people always are afraid of the 50% drop.

It's predicted at least the last 3 recessions. No chance of parity by spring.

Or you could be smart and put your money in the closest possible approximation to the optimal portfolio with consideration for your investment goals and recognize that the conventional wisdom of keeping short term spending money and 6 months or whatever living expenses in risk free (aka return free) checking accounts is complete nonsense.

I have a noob question in trading. What if u leverage x100 both long and short?? On the same pair...

most of the time you end up losing all your money, but sometimes you get rich

Agree with the premise but risk free assets != return free and are certainly not limited to checking accounts. This is covered in detail in both The Intelligent Asset Allocator and The Ages of The Investor by William Bernstein.

How? I dont understand it... if it goes down u 100x and if it goes up u 100x..

How are you planning on leveraging 100x?

If you ever get laid off in a bad economy after a market crash and have trouble finding a job you'll understand why it's not complete nonsense at all.

Not to say it has to be entirely risk free or exactly 6 months or whatever, these things can vary. But the general principle is sound.