@slick,
Thanks very much for the advice. This gives a good set of questions to ask. I'm curious if you hired a planner or did your own financial planning. Reading thru a number of the planners, it seems like its difficult to find a planner that doesn't also look to manage your assets. I'm also considering using the roboadviser service offered by Schwab to do a sanity check on my asset allocation and then using the tools available on this site to pick new funds.

A place to start might be reading the info on this link to NAPFA , https://www.napfa.org/financial-planning/how-to-find-an-advisor
the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors. Good luck, they can develop a plan for you based on your needs and maybe review quarterly or semi-annually. They most likely will charge a flat rate for the plan and hourly for review.

HI folks,
I wonder if I could ask for the board's advice on how to identify a good fee-only financial planner. I have had an initial meeting with an advisor at Merrill Lynch and he seems to be good. However, he only provides financial planning if I turn over my assets to him. He will create a financial plan and then charge me 1% for assets under management on an ongoing basis. I'm not sure that I want to go that route. I need to do some retirement planning that will evaluate my financial picture with the intention of retiring in 10 years. But I'm more of a buy and hold investor. I think that I might want to go the route of working with a financial planner who can develop the plan but that I would continue to manage my own assets. I'm not sure that the ongoing fee of paying 1% for someone else to manage my assets is worth it. I'd value your thoughts on how to identify a good planner. If anyone has had good experience with someone in the Washington DC area please message me.. Thank you.

I agree that Schwab offers a broader range of products, though a choice between the two when investing beyond Vanguard is not as clear cut as it might appear:
"Schwab offers a broader range of no fee mutual funds and ETFs through its OneSource program, with hundreds of candidates compared to Vanguard’s 129 mutual funds and 56 ETFs."
Only for another week. Then Vanguard pulls ahead with its 3419 NTF funds (from its search engine) and over 1800 ETFs. Schwab's fund screener shows Schwab has 4342 funds in its OneSource (NTF) program, and Schwab offers "more than 250" ETFs through OneSource. Not that I think number of NTF funds is a particularly good metric.
Investopedia is correct that Vanguard's banking services are close to nonexistent. While its 0.25% rate (the article is out of date) on checking is better than TBTF banks', it's well below what many banks pay. Schwab uses cash accounts as a significant source of revenue.
"Vanguard has no automatic sweep into money market funds so free cash in the brokerage account won’t earn interest unless the customer buys the funds manually."
Why would you need a sweep when the VBS settlement account is VMFXX, with a current SEC yield of 1.89%, over 9x what Schwab pays?
An important factor for me is reducing minimums to get into institutional funds. For example, you can get into PIMIX with $25K at Vanguard. At Schwab, you'll need $100K.
These days, I use Schwab primarily for its worldwide, foreign-transaction-fee free, fee-rebate ATM card. In addition, a very small number of financial institutions insist on ACH transfers only from a "real" bank and not a brokerage account. Schwab Bank is a real bank.
Finally, I think Schwab has significantly better service than Vanguard; fortunately that's something I haven't had much need for with either one of them.

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%

Hi Mark. Yes, I'd like to get Junkster's position here as well. In my case, I'd rather avoid dealing with spreads and limit trades, if possible. And, I take comfort in expecting that traditionally (I know there can be exceptions, but so far I consider them extreme) a mutual fund exchanges precisely at the closing NAV, especially on a heavy transaction that can be particularly sensitive to trade volume. The downside, particularly if you're trading on trend, you're forced to live with the position a-whole-nother day once it crosses a trade threshold. May not sound like a lot, but it was during the financial crisis even for "tight-channel" funds like PIMIX. c

FYI: Vanguard Group and Charles Schwab opened their doors to the public at nearly the same time in the 1970s, but with different approaches to investing. Vanguard pioneered mutual fund ownership and is now the world’s leading provider of this financial segment while Schwab pioneered the concept of discount brokers, allowing Main Street investors to buy and sell securities at lower prices.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.investopedia.com/ipf/charles-schwab-vs-vanguard/?partner=YahooSA&yptr=yahoo

The question appeared to be about the investor's financial situation, not about the investment's performance. How to sell out of any investment cheaply in an emergency. I agree with Ted's sentiment - that mutual funds (including target date funds and index funds) are not investments you should be considering if you might sell in the short term.
Sure, it's best to evaluate a fund over a full cycle before even buying it. However, if you've done that and like the fund, still don't buy it with the expectation that you might flip it "in case something comes up and you need to sell".
I read "need to sell" in the question as meaning "need to raise cash". I can see what I think is your interpretation: "need to sell because one can't stomach the three month dip". Still, index ETFs don't offer any better guarantee of avoiding that dip than do actively managed funds which you've fully researched and watched. Don't buy either if you might sell quickly.

One more aside on K-1s....preferred stocks of K-1 issuing companies, could sometimes have higher amounts of UBTI (only need to worry if held in a tax-advantaged account) than its common share cousin. This is just a generality, and therefore not always the case. So just something to be aware of.
And I just learned this, this year.....anywho, back to adding/buying.
Added to the growth sleeve (even though growth has outperformed for a ridiculously long time)...such things as FINX (financial tech), SKYY (the “cloud”), ARKK (tech, high tech products, and life science tech), PSCH (small cap health), and some of the healthcare service and equipment ETFs. Would love to buy more AMZN but there’s no stopping it’s upward march.

This starts by saying "choose the manager not the fund", but goes on to explain how you can struggle to buy the fund. Why not simply follow this advice and consider other funds run by the same manger?
"Whoever you give a fund share to then becomes an existing investor who can also make additional investments and give away fund shares."
That might work for a fund like EISMX, where the prospectus reads:

The Fund has discontinued all sales of its shares, except shares purchased by: (1) existing shareholders (including shares acquired through the reinvestment of dividends and distributions and those who received Fund shares in connection with a reorganization);

but will it work with a fund like BCSIX? For some funds, in order to buy more shares you not only need to be an existing shareholder now, but also as of the date the fund closed. The prospectus for BCSIX reads:

Existing shareholders as of October 18, 2013, the Fund’s closing date, are permitted to make additional investments in any account that held shares of the Fund on that date

But not into a younger account.
The article says that 17 out of 23 funds that "passed muster" were open. Then goes on to say that the five managers listed here are the ones running the closed funds.
I always wonder about anonymous financial writers who say that 23 - 17 = 5 :-)
Maybe these five managers ran all six closed funds? (So what's the sixth fund?) Is it saying that Fried (Primecap) is the only manager of POAGX that "passed muster"? Seems it is really listing funds (five of the six), not managers.

https://www.financial-planning.com/news/vanguard-files-paperwork-to-launch-a-global-credit-fund-news-scan?feed=00000153-9f90-d098-a37b-dfb9d93c0000
August 15
Money Management Executive Bond funds International funds Asset management Alternative investments ETFs Vanguard BMO Global Asset Management
Our weekly roundup of industry highlights
Vanguard proposes global credit bond fund
Vanguard filed preliminary registration for a global credit bond fund, which the firm expects to launch in November.

The author seems to have a different notion of risk aversion than I would, especially when he equates financial decisions with sports choices, or draws any conclusion about a $10 gain/loss.
What I'd consider as risk aversion, he dismisses as rational behavior. Well, yeah -- that's why I'm averse to that risk.
The author is a professor of marketing, not a psychologist. He could be very knowledgeable on this subject, but this blog entry is not very convincing. I think it's very difficult to know what motivates people.
David

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

MikeW,
Will you be able to keep the Thrift Savings Plan?
Often, at retirement, these plans can no longer be contributed to and may also have to be transferred out of the Thrift Savings Plan. This was the case for a relative who work for a government employer (military) who recently retired a few months ago.

I'm not that familiar with TSP (all I know is what I read in the papers). Still, the situation you're describing sounds unusual.
TSP holds itself out as " similar to a 401(k) plan in the private sector." In the private sector, by law you must be allowed to keep your money in your 401(k) so long as you have at least $5K there.
Many plans allow you to keep your money even if you have a lesser amount. With TSP, "If your vested account balance is $200 or more, you can leave your entire account with the TSP until the account withdrawal deadline." The deadline it's talking about is just the usual rule that RMDs begin the later of age 70.5 or separation from service.
https://www.tsp.gov/PlanParticipation/LoansAndWithdrawals/withdrawals/index.html
It's pretty obvious that someone who is not working for an employer cannot make payroll contributions to that employer's sponsored plan (TSP, 401(k), 403(b), etc.) But TSP seems very flexible in the types of other post-retirement contributions it allows.
It accepts rollovers from IRAs and transfers from retirement plans at other employers. "Not only can you leave your money with the TSP, you can simplify your financial life by moving money from plans into your TSP account." However, it doesn't look like it can accommodate Roth money, as it limits IRA rollovers to traditional IRAs.
https://www.tsp.gov/PlanParticipation/EligibilityAndContributions/RolloversTransfers/index.html

Take a close look at the retirement benefits that are being offered through your government employer. Ten years may be a bit off in the future, but start paying attention to what's being offered now and what might be on the chopping block.
Employers usually have a retirement packet that they share with new retirees. Gather as much information about the retirement process with your employer. I did this and discovered there were many choices I needed to consider with this part of retirement planning. In my case, I selected to move some of my 403b investment to purchase an "extra annuity" through my employer (a somewhat unique option). I shared this option with a few financial planners and they confirmed that using some of these 403b dollars to buy this annuity was a very good option. I fine tuned the amount of the "extra annuity" based on my projected retirement income needs.
These financial planners typically will not be experts on all the options that your employer offers...it's your job to bring these choices/options for discussion.

@MikeW: Hope this is of some help.
Regards,
Ted
Nerd Wallet:
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/10-questions-ask-financial-advisor/
Motley Fool:
https://www.fool.com/slideshow/13-smart-questions-everyone-should-ask-their-financial-advisor/
Dave Ramsey:
https://www.daveramsey.com/blog/questions-to-ask-financial-advisor

I was hoping to request some advice. I am meeting with a new financial planner today to do some retirement plannig and review our investment portfolio. I'm about 10 years from retirement and will have a government pension. I'm interested in the planner providing recommendations on asset allocation and steps we should take to achieve our goals. I would value the board's suggestions on questions I should ask the planner or links to such questions. The planner works for Merrill so I'm sure he will be recommending their various products. Our situation is a little complicated in that we have a special needs son that we need to plan for. Thanks so much for your advice.

@davfor
I wandered a bit from your subject post, relating to the Mackinac Bridge in the article photo; which has a 5 mile span connecting the lower and upper peninsulas of Michigan.
As to the subject, I'm not sure why NYT chose this particular piece; but Mr. Lee is likely not wrong about possibilities. There is a very large boat load of money in the form of bond issuance globally.
If one were to envision the financial markets perched upon an eight leg stool of bonds and other cash substitutes; not all legs would have to break to cause a problem.
CDS (credit default swaps); being insurance against bond defaults and other forms of derivatives are still in place, not unlike the market melt 10 years ago. CDS instruments, to the best of my knowledge are still not monitored or under scrutiny by any official agency, U.S. or global. Although I am sure the Fed. and U.S. Treasury know the amounts.
Apologies for the thread drift via the "bridge".....I don't like or appreciate excessive thread drift either.
Regards,
Catch

Nonsense. The global financial markets will crash next Tuesday at exactly 9:03AM EST. If it happens, remember that I predicted it. If it doesn't, David Snowball must have predicted it.

>> I believe in a balanced portfolio with income producing instruments. My personal AA preference is the "pay your bills first" method which requires income producers. All new investors should consult a financial professional.
Many of whom may well suggest, in my experience, not looking at income production first, or even chiefly, at least not in the sense of living off of / paying bills from income stream.