Orman is responding to a question about 20 and 30 year olds "RETIRING"! I think she is probably right on the money with that statement since they will be foregoing 30-40 years worth of paychecks from a job. Just a poorly written article. The article is "nonsense".

Orman was responding to a question about the “financial independence, retire early,” or “FIRE,” movement, a growing online trend in which people in their 30s or younger just stop working.
‘You need at least $5 million, or $6 million. Really, you might need $10 million.’

FYI: ( In the Linkster opinion Suze's nothing more than one giant infomertial, hawking her financial tapes and books on PBS, QVC, and HSN.)
Author and personal-finance guru Suze Orman ruffled a lot of feathers in a recent podcast, saying that people need $5 million — maybe even $10 million — in order to retire.
Orman was responding to a question about the “financial independence, retire early,” or “FIRE,” movement, a growing online trend in which people in their 30s or younger just stop working.
‘You need at least $5 million, or $6 million. Really, you might need $10 million.’
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/suze-orman-says-you-need-5-million-to-retire-thats-nonsense-2019-01-15/print
Eddie Cantor- If You Knew Susie:

I thought the linked article from @JohnN good - but pretty rudimentary.
On a different (I hope related) note, a slick 30-minute TV infomercial - from one of those free dinner annuity peddlers provides occassional comedic relief Sunday mornings (especially if you missed SNL Saturday night). Always interesting observing their various scare tactics designed to dissuade folks from investing in mutual funds. Lots of big impressive looking charts. They seem to prey on poorly informed seniors and those nearing retirement.
The guy today was focused on frightening people away from mutual funds (and Target Date Retirement funds in particular) by highlighting the performance of American Funds Target Date 2010 REATX during 2008 (hardly a representative year). He claims it lost 28% in 2008 despite having only 38% in equities and over 60% in bonds (75% of them rated A or higher).
Can’t confirm his numbers. I’m surprised if REATX actually lost that much. However, in 2008 those invested in it would likely have been working (and importantly still contributing) and at least 2 years from retirement. For comparison, Price’s TRRIX runs a similar 40 / 60 allocation and lost around 20% in ‘08. What these hucksters did not mention was that 2009 was a strong up year. Likely REATX recouped most (not all) of that 2008 loss.
Obviously if you want to frighten folks away from target date retirement funds, highlighting the worst stock market / financial year out of the past 30 or 40 is the way to do it.

( The Closing Bell will be updated sometime after 4:00 PM CDST to include the latest update from IBD and Bloomberg and will be moved to the top of the board.)
FYI: Shares of technology companies led major U.S. indexes higher, as investors warmed up again to riskier stocks again following the Federal Reserve’s indication that it will hold interest rates steady this year.
Apple, Micron Technology and other fast-growing stocks rose in a broad rally that continued to pick up momentum as the trading day progressed. The gains pulled the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 higher for the first time in three trading sessions, recouping their losses from earlier in the week.
The Dow industrials rose 216 points, or 0.84%, to 25962, while the S&P 500 added .1.08%. The sharp rise in tech stocks pushed the Nasdaq Composite up 1.42% in recent trading.
Still, financial stocks continued to struggle. Bank shares fell a second consecutive trading session and were headed for their worst week since December following the Fed’s move, as some investors assumed that slowing growth, along with lower rates, will crimp lenders’ profitability.
Inflation is among the most powerful forces in financial markets, but too much or too little can send the economy spiraling. Here's how it works, and how the Fed works to regulate it.
Shares of JPMorgan Chase fell 1.5%, while Bank of America shed 1.1%. Some regional banks were hit even harder, with Regions Financial sliding 2.2%.
European financial companies faced similar pressure, with the Stoxx Europe 600’s banking basket down 1% as yields on government bonds fell.
The yearlong trade spat between the U.S. and China is one of the factors economists have cited as playing a part in ebbing global growth. That said, Asian markets were mixed, despite President Trump’s comments that a trade deal with China isn’t imminent and the U.S. expects to keep tariffs on Chinese goods in place for a “substantial period of time,” even after a trade deal.
Hong Kong’s Hang Seng benchmark fell 0.9%, although indexes in China, South Korea, and Taiwan notched gains of less than 1% despite Japanese markets were closed for a public holiday.
Ten of the eleven S&P 500 Sectors led by Technology finished in positive territory. The only losers were Financials.
Regards
Ted
MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-logs-more-than-200-point-gain-as-apple-leads-tech-stocks-higher-2019-03-21/print
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-pause-as-markets-parse-fed-outlook-11553161220
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-20/dollar-yields-fall-on-fed-asia-stocks-seen-down-markets-wrap?srnd=premium
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/nasdaq-sp-500-rally-five-month-high-apple-ready-to-run/
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/tech-powers-wall-streets-recovery-banks-reel-under-feds-dovish-stance-idUSKCN1R213S
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/stock-market-equities-react-to-fed-meeting-jobless-numbers-in-focus.html
U.K.:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/ftse-100-up-as-oil-miners-pull-their-weight-weak-results-hit-mid-caps-idUKKCN1R20S8
Europe:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/europe-markets-boe-in-focus-after-dovish-fed-stance.html
Asia:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/asian-markets-edge-higher-after-fed-puts-lid-on-rate-hikes-2019-03-21/print
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/us-bonds-jobless-numbers-in-focus.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/forex-market-federal-reserve-brexit-vote-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/oil-market-global-economic-slowdown-opec-supply-cuts-in-focus.html
Gold
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/gold-market-federal-reserve-dollar-moves-in-focus.html
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
https://markets.wsj.com/us
Major ETFs % Change:
https://www.barchart.com/etfs-funds/etf-monitor
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:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

FYI: It took some three decades and a financial crisis, but the evangelicals of index investing finally got their message across—low fees lead to better performance.
The past decade has seen unprecedented amounts of money going into index funds. And not just any index funds, but the very cheapest: More than 97% of flows into the $4 trillion exchange-traded fund industry last year went to ETFs that charge 0.2% or less, Bloomberg data shows.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/when-cheap-doesnt-yield-better-returns-51552702025?mod=hp_DAY_2

I babysit a colleague's money, and his wife's. After the initial move in 2010, there's hardly been a need to touch it. She's a teacher in Ohio now, which wasn't the case in 2010. Don't know a thing about her 403b, or whether she's contributing. My colleague trusted a professional broker who also happened to be an ordained Minister. That "Minister-broker" had him in Oppenheimer funds carrying a 5.75% front-load--- in a 403b. That's just criminal, though (apparently) it is perfectly legal. Now he's in no-load TRP. No financial literacy in schools very often leaves the average guy and gal at the mercy of predators--- ordained or not. Outrageous. He'll have a rare traditional defined-benefit pension to go along with his 403b, and hers. He's lucky, that way. But he was being robbed.

Judging from the above comments, the components of a 403(b) must depend upon the individual school district. We maxed out my wife's 403(b) every year. The SF "United" School District's plan offered a very wide array of mutual funds and other options, but there was no matching contribution from the SFUSD involved. For some reason American Funds was not on that list, so we maxed out her IRA, and mine, with purchases of various American Funds.
In addition to those tax-sheltered retirement funds we purchased additional shares of both American Funds and American Century funds with whatever we could afford each year.
Both of us also contributed to our respective defined benefit pensions, and Social Security. Thanks to all of that saving we are in very good financial shape now.

Thanks, but not original. At the time of the GFC (global financial crisis), people were referring to retirement accounts as 201(k)s.
See, e.g. Scott Burns, They Don't Call Them 201(k)s for Nothing, April 24,2009.
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/they-dont-call-them-201k-s-for-nothing

Yes, it does make financial sense, but of course with ownership comes voting rights.
I can already hear the protests from the Cato Institute et al. : "The government has no business influencing the free markets! Get the government off the back of Wall Street! Get the government out of our financial lives! The government has no business picking winners!! etc. etc. etc., ad nauseum.
Can you just imagine the reaction from the Trumpsters if SS were to emulate Norway and drop oil investments? Or, for that matter, from the environmentalists if SS were to invest in same?

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20190304/stepleman-do-target-date-funds-do-their-job
Buffet recommended these vehicles recently.
We have 10 % in 401k in tdf

Huh?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-target-date-funds-arent-way-go-175409855.html
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/40833/target-date-funds-buffett

Yahoo Finance reader Greg Woodruff from Bakersfield, California asked Warren Buffett, the CEO Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A, BRK-B), if target date funds are really adding value.
“No, probably not,” Buffett said during a wide-ranging interview with Yahoo Finance’s Andy Serwer. “The S&P 500 Index Fund is the one to use. That’s the one I used in that bet I made for ten years. It’s the one I’ve told the trustee for my wife to put 90% of the funds I leave her in to.”

Also, the idea with target date funds is to use them for substantially all of your assets. If you don't, you're working against the glide path which is designed for your overall portfolio.
Suppose the glide path for your age says you should be 50/50 stocks/bonds and you have 10% in the tdf and 90% in equity funds. Then your mix is 95/5. What's the point of using the tdf? If you want to control the portfolio allocation yourself, it's easier to work with fixed allocation funds than with ones that "glide".

Who is this guy? His arguments against target date funds are lame.

It's easy enough to find out who this guy is:

... He has also written on portfolio risk management for Barron’s Financial Weekly. Additionally, he assists in the management of the investment portfolio of the Community Foundation of Sarasota County.
Dr. Stepleman holds a Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of Maryland and a B.S. in Physics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has taught at the University of Virginia and Rutgers University. He also spent 20 years at Exxon Research and Engineering Company and seven years with the RCA David Sarnoff Research Center. ...

Some of his arguments do seem lame. For example, on the one hand lamenting that there's not agreement on what a "correct" glide path is; on the other complaining about "one size fits all". There isn't agreement on a correct glide path precisely because one size doesn't fit all. Different glide paths are offered because what is correct for one person is not correct for another.
Some of his points IMHO not lame at all. "Research by Wade Pfau and Michael Kitces suggests a more optimal glide path ramps down even more severely to 10 percent stocks at retirement and then starts increasing the stock holding gradually to 50 percent. Their research indicates this glide path can provide better protection against sequence of return and longevity risks."
Of course I would think this part had substance. I have to. I said the same thing two days ago:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/111071/#Comment_111071

I hadn’t heard this term before. A bit hard running it down, but did come across an Investopedia article that discusses it as one allocation approach.
https://www.investopedia.com/investing/6-asset-allocation-strategies-work/
Each will have his / her own take on this. I get the general drift that the approach is designed to cut losses. But it runs contrary to everything I know and feel about investing. Would you sell your home if its assessed value fell below a certain level? How about the vacant lot in the neighborhood you bought for spec? Or the antique auto you own and admire?
When I invest in funds I’m investing in the underlying assets (companies, commodities, gold, infrastructure, secured debt, etc.). I expect these will vary in value over the years (as a home might). But if I believe it’s worthwhile owning those underlying assets, than why would I sell them just because their market value dropped?
I remain optimistic that over the longer term (10+ years) a well diversified portfolio that has exposure to many types of investments (read: not 100% invested in VFINX or TRBCX) will keep me at least on pace with inflation - and probably somewhat ahead of it. Generally, I’d rather own “things” than pieces of paper with $$ signs printed on them.
—
@DavidV - I have not addressed the issue of age (which you mention). Your question seemed to be more about a specific allocation strategy. I’m aware 2 or 3 prominent board members mentioned during the past year that they were moving almost entirely to cash. The reasons seemed to be related primarily to age. IMHO that’s an entirely separate decision that everyone with the help of family and friends needs to make at some point. Call it an “allocation strategy” if you like. Whatever works. :)
(I’m not a qualified financial advisor.)

On Fidelity Women's Leadership: the idea of favoring teams with more diversity senior leadership teams actually makes financial sense. "There's substantial evidence that gender diversity at the management level enhances a company's performance" (CNBC, 2018). The three gender-screened funds that I know of (Pax, Glenmede and a SPDR) all have above-average returns.
The problem is pinning down exactly why that's the case since knowing how gender diversity contributes to the bottom line helps understand what sorts of things to screen for. So my skepticism is more aimed at "any one woman in 'senior leadership' is good enough for us" as a screening criterion.
David

"Around this time last year ... the Republican agenda was intact."
@Ted - you put this in play
The article continues ... "All that changed in the last three months of the year.   ...[Elaine Stokes] says 'We went from a Republican-led agenda to a mixed Congress with stalemate situations '"
What was that agenda that became stalemated only after September? Serious question. I get nervous when managers let their politics drive their investing.
According to National Review (Jan 2018),

At the White House, infrastructure is the big idea. ...
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan keeps talking up welfare reform: ... He also says that reform of Medicare and Social Security is on his wish list, although he does not see it happening this year.
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, says action on welfare is unlikely but suggests that bipartisan legislation on immigration and financial regulation might be possible.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/worthwhile-republican-agenda-2018/
That was January. In April, CNBC's headline was: Trump keeps calling for major legislation, but Congress isn't listening – especially with midterms coming.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/03/trump-congress-dont-expect-big-legislation-in-2018.html
It's one thing to have hopes (of whatever political persuasion), it's another for a fund manager to look at a 2018 Congress that was dysfunctional and believe that only now has it become stalemated.
Especially since much of the major 2018 legislation was bipartisan, e.g. sanctioning of Russia, criminal justice reform, opioid crisis response act. Not to mention the farm bill that passed with wide support once a provision to restrict food stamps was pulled out.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/25/a-productivity-scorecard-for-115th-congress/

Nice article. My own contention is fund collecting is detrimental to returns. I think Tom was trying to be kind in his comments.
A couple worth while comments:

So you can see how some investors' portfolios can grow quite large. Will these investors necessarily do better than an investor who only invests a small number of funds, or even just in the Vanguard LifeStrategy Moderate Growth Fund? There is no way to know in advance but I suppose it depends largely on how accurately each investor has judged in advance which fund categories and specific funds will do better than the performance of the total stock and bond markets. This is extremely hard for any investor, or even financial professional, to accomplish...

Bottom line: In the end, individual investors must decide for themselves the number of funds they want to invest in, as there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Given that, it would worthwhile for investors choosing more than a handful of funds to periodically check to see whether their choices as a whole are doing better than the option of sticking to just a very small number of funds.

FYI: Even after one of the most storied careers in financial markets, Bill Gross has a few surprises left.
For one, he’s been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, the autism-spectrum disorder. Gross says he lived most of his life unaware of the condition and now believes it helps explain not only why he was such a successful investor for so long but also why he could, by his own admission, rub people the wrong way.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-01/taxes-deficits-and-asperger-s-the-bill-gross-you-didn-t-know

Thanks to both of you for your input. I was debating yesterday whether to post the WSJ article, but decided not to because of the paywall, and the entire story was far too detailed to summarize in a quick excerpt / recap. Here's a few choice excerpts from the WSJ article:
"When a fund pays a fee that aims to result in the sale of fund shares, either directly or indirectly, securities laws require it to be part of what is known as a 12b-1 plan and to be disclosed to investors."
"In the internal Fidelity document, the company indicates that it doesn’t consider the infrastructure fee to cover distribution services. Rather, it categorizes the agreement between Fidelity and funds on its platform as “shareholder services”; such fees may not require a 12b-1 plan."
Sleaze in the financial markets, as usual. No, no... not a "distribution fee"... it's a "shareholder service" fee.
Right.

@Starchild: I have provided a link to Dr. Tom Madel's mutual fund newsletter. You can review current and past newsletters once you open the link. I'm sure, being a new investor, there is a weath of information contained in these newsletter from asset allocation models and recommended fund selections that will be of some benefit.
http://funds-newsletter.com
You might wish to give a shout out to @JoJo26 as she seems to be of the new school spirited type investor for her thoughts. In addition, perhaps @tmadell might have a thought or two for you. I'm of the old school type and invest the traditional way via broker and financial advisor.
I wish you the very best in the coming years with your investing endeavors.
Old_Skeet

Thanks Skeet! Much appreciated.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1679960/000116204419000108/state497201902.htm
497 1 state497201902.htm
SUPPLEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 27, 2019 TO THE
ENHANCED ULTRA SHORT DURATION MUTUAL FUND PROSPECTUS
DATED MARCH 29, 2018, AS SUPPLEMENTED
On February 20, 2019, the Board of Trustees of State Funds (the “Trust”), upon the recommendation of New York Alaska ETF Management LLC, the investment adviser for the series of the Trust, approved a plan to liquidate and terminate (the “Liquidation”) the Enhanced Ultra Short Duration Mutual Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust. It is anticipated that the Liquidation will be completed on or about March 6, 2019 (the “Liquidation Date”). A shareholder vote is not required to approve the Liquidation.
Any shares of the Fund outstanding on the Liquidation Date will be automatically redeemed on that date. Effective as of the regularly scheduled close of regular trading on the New York Stock Exchange on February 27, 2019, the Fund will no longer accept investments from new shareholders. Redemption orders received in proper form as described in the Fund’s prospectus after the close of regular trading on the New York Stock Exchange on February 27, 2019 will not be subject to any contingent deferred sales charges or other sales charges imposed by the Fund, except that shares held through a broker-dealer or other financial intermediary, such as omnibus accounts, may be subject to sales charges in accordance with the protocols of the financial intermediary.
At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem their shares of the Fund pursuant to the procedures set forth in the prospectus under “How to Redeem Shares.” A letter will be sent to shareholders who hold shares directly with the Fund with respect to the Liquidation and the distribution of their redemption proceeds. Shareholders who hold their shares in the Fund through a financial intermediary should contact their financial representative to discuss their options with respect to the Liquidation and the distribution of such shareholders’ redemption proceeds.
It is expected that as soon as practicable following the Liquidation, the cash proceeds of the Liquidation will be distributed to shareholders of the Fund in complete redemption of their shares, after all charges, taxes, expenses and liabilities of the Fund have been paid or accounted for. For federal income tax purposes, the automatic redemption on the Liquidation Date will generally be considered a taxable event like any other redemption of shares. Shareholders should consult with their tax advisors for more information about the tax consequences of the Liquidation to them, including any federal, state, local, foreign or other tax consequences.
In order to provide for an orderly liquidation and satisfy redemptions in anticipation of the Liquidation, the Fund will no longer pursue its investment objectives and strategies between now and the Liquidation Date.
For assistance or more information, shareholders can contact their registered representative or contact the Fund by calling toll free 1-800-523-8382.
* * * * *
Please retain this Supplement for future reference...

@Starchild: I have provided a link to Dr. Tom Madel's mutual fund newsletter. You can review current and past newsletters once you open the link. I'm sure, being a new investor, there is a weath of information contained in these newsletter from asset allocation models and recommended fund selections that will be of some benefit.
http://funds-newsletter.com
You might wish to give a shout out to @JoJo26 as she seems to be of the new school spirited type investor for her thoughts. In addition, perhaps @tmadell might have a thought or two for you. I'm of the old school type and invest the traditional way via broker and financial advisor.
I wish you the very best in the coming years with your investing endeavors.
Old_Skeet

I agree with the conclusion, but with little else here. Slott plays to his crowd: the government is bad, the government is out to get you, the government lies.
Look at the quote Gary gave (gov said SS would never be taxed). Here's what SSA says about that:

Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program. ...
In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department.

I suspect Slott would be bringing up notch babies, except that nearly all of this part of his crowd has died off. (They'd be over 100 years old.)
He said that people who had already made Roth contributions would be grandfathered in. IMHO he's being too generous here. Previous contributions and previous earnings would be grandfathered in, but not people. Future earnings in Roths by people who already had Roths could be taxed easily.
The reasons why I believe that, and not what he described would be the worst case are twofold:
1 - Government honesty (seriously). Governments (federal, state, local) may individually tax the same income (e.g. fed and state tax the same W2 income), but a single government entity does not tax the same income twice. (The IRS may tax corp. earning and then tax dividends paid out of those earnings, but those are taxes levied on two different taxpayers, at two different levels.) Roth contributions have already been taxed as personal income; they will not be taxed again.
2 - Pragmatics. No one is required to maintain records of contributions or earnings in Roth IRAs (at least once the five year requirements have been met). So it would be difficult for the government to tax past earnings on contributions. It would be very easy for it to tax future earnings. Just change the law so that people (and financial institutions) are required to keep track of those earnings.