Up until now, I've never heard of Robinhood (Brokerage). As fine a name as my lawyer who works for Dewey, Cheatem and Howe in Harvard Square, Cambridge, Mass.

Robinhood’s smartphone application is the only way users can interface with their accounts. Thankfully, the app is very well done: it is responsive and intuitive, making it easy to navigate for even the newest smartphone users.

https://www.brokerage-review.com/online-broker-reviews/robinhood-review.aspx
Well that won't work for me. I don't trust smartypants phones to do anything besides make and receive phone calls, messaging and tell me the weather report. I don't even like or trust searching for anything on the phone. Besides I can't read the dang information anyway. Fonts are too small. No way I'm accessing any financial services entity with all the security holes on smartypants phones. The internet is bad enough as it is.

Robinhood is amazing. Had no issues ever with it. Easy to sign-up, trade. Only negative I guess is you don't get something like an x-ray on TDA for asset allocation and things, but I'm not sitting there monitoring it every single second of the day. Let my money work for me.

@bee, The '3 degrees of bad' illustrated and explained exactly my thoughts. Especially this paragraph:
Research by Wade Pfau[4] shows that purchasing fixed annuities can actually lead to larger final estates for this reason. "Though SPIAs [single-premium immediate annuities] do not offer liquidity, they provide mortality credits and generate bond-like income without any maturity date, and they support a higher stock allocation for remaining financial assets. Altogether, this allows a client to better meet both retirement financial objectives [spending and a legacy]".
My self-made Excel spreadsheet shows the same.
Thank you very much bee.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
October 12, 2017
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
This week marked the 30th anniversary of the October 19th, 1987 market crash when the blue chip Dow plummeted nearly 25%, behaving like the shakiest of emerging markets. It’s a stark contrast to the market’s current behavior which is eerily subdued and trading at record highs.
What caused the Dow to drop 508 points on that single day, now forever known as Black Monday? As Ben Levisohn wrote in his excellent article in Barron’s titled Black Monday 2.O: The Next Machine-Driven Meltdown:
“…experts found a culprit: so-called portfolio insurance, a quantitative tool designed to use futures contracts to protect against market losses. Instead, it created a poisonous feedback loop, as automated selling begat more of the same.”
Fast forward 30 years, and that type of automated trading program seems almost quaint. Quantitative, rules-based systems known as algorithms, computer- based trading programs and strategies have grown exponentially in number, trading volume and complexity since then. And as Barron’s Levisohn wrote: “…bear a resemblance to those blamed for Black Monday.”
How risky are the markets now?
That is the focus of this week’s WEALTHTRACK and our guest, a leading expert on risk. We’ll be joined by Richard Bookstaber, Chief Risk Officer in the Office of the Chief Investment Officer for the $110 billion University of California Pension and Endowment portfolios. Bookstaber has had chief risk officer roles at major investment firms ranging from hedge funds Bridgewater and Moore Capital to investment banks Morgan Stanley and Salomon Brothers. From 2009 to 2015 he switched to the public sector, working at the SEC and U.S. Treasury. Among his projects was helping build out the risk management structure for the Financial Stability Oversight Council and drafting the Volcker Rule which restricts proprietary trading by banks.
Bookstaber is also an author of two highly regarded books on financial risk. His most recent is The End of Theory: Financial Crises, The Failure of Economics, and the Sweep of Human Interaction. His first, A Demon of Our Own Design: Markets, Hedge Funds and the Perils of Financial Innovation, published in 2007 presciently warned of the perils of the explosion of financial derivatives, some of which he helped create.
In a 2007 WEALTHTRACK appearance he alerted us about the twin risks of high leverage and complex financial instruments. How right he was. On this week’s show we will discuss the new risks he sees in the markets now, some created by regulations created to solve the old ones!
If you’d like to see the show before it airs, it is available to our PREMIUM subscribers right now. We also have an EXTRA interview with Bookstaber about his new book, which can be seen exclusively on our website. Also, a reminder that WEALTHTRACK is available as a YouTube Channel, so if you are unable to join us for the show on television, you can watch it on our website, WealthTrack.com, or by subscribing to our YouTube Channel.
Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and a productive one.
Best regards,
Consuelo

Yes. Merrill went ahead and implemented the DOL rule in retirement accounts effective the original day in June. One still can continue trading as self-directed and pay 6.95 per equity trade and get mutual funds etc. .45 fiduciary stuff provides strategic risk based asset allocation and rebalancing with cheap etfs for those who cant do it themselves and starts at $5000 minimum. .85% service includes a larger fund selection and a human being to talk to... i believe the min is $25k. Note that all models are created by the CIO office and are of institutional quality from open architecture platform. Mutual fund shares within those are either advisory or institutional, depending on the company.
And then there is merrill lynch, a full service brokerage: financial planning, behaviorial, alternatives, financing, etc. All new retirement accounts have been fee-based fiduciary relationships since june, or none. Taxable could be any.
Hope this clarifies the new post-DOL arrangement at merrill somewhat.

I know free ETF/stock trades sounds great at Robinhood, but I'm curious how many investors here value things like security and stability of their financial institutions. What I mean is sometimes when I look at these small upstart brokers, I wonder how likely they are to be hacked like Equifax and how stable their financial resources are if there was suddenly a run on the bank style type crisis like 2008. I'm not saying big brokers like TD and Schwab and Fidelity can't be hacked or experience such runs, but I do think they are better able to handle distress than maybe newer brokers can. And I also wonder how many online security people a broker like Robinhood can afford and whether running maybe on a more shoestring budget makes them more vulnerable to cyber attacks. I also sometimes wonder about things like credit quality at all brokers. For instance, I know that for a while E*Trade didn't have the best of credit ratings, although it has improved in recent years. The other issue is narrow breath of product and financial tools, but most investors seem cognizant of that when they sign up for Robinhood.

@MSF I see your point, but it's $6.95 to sell an ETF outside the NTF platform, not $50, as shares are treated as stocks for commission purposes. Instead of selling, probably the best strategy would be to find a reasonable substitute in the new list to existing ETF positions and just add to your position with that ETF while holding onto the old one--an annoyance for record keeping admittedly, but you wouldn't have to realize any additional capital gains too soon. I agree there is a bit of marketing shenanigans here, but I also think there are some interesting new options on this list and it is true that costs have declined for a number of broad bread and butter index style SPDR ETFs such as total market, emerging, agg bond, small cap, etc that are now transaction free. I don't see it nearly as negatively as the Financial Buff does.

Transfer your taxable assets to Robinhood and you're all set.

@MSF I see your point, but it's $6.95 to sell an ETF outside the NTF platform, not $50, as shares are treated as stocks for commission purposes. Instead of selling, probably the best strategy would be to find a reasonable substitute in the new list to existing ETF positions and just add to your position with that ETF while holding onto the old one--an annoyance for record keeping admittedly, but you wouldn't have to realize any additional capital gains too soon. I agree there is a bit of marketing shenanigans here, but I also think there are some interesting new options on this list and it is true that costs have declined for a number of broad bread and butter index style SPDR ETFs such as total market, emerging, agg bond, small cap, etc that are now transaction free. I don't see it nearly as negatively as the Financial Buff does.

FYI: U.S. stocks edged higher on Monday as financial shares recovered from last week’s losses and higher oil prices lifted energy shares.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-15/stocks-in-asia-to-gain-as-u-s-inflation-slows-markets-wrap
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-street-higher-as-bank-stocks-rebound-apple-gains-idUSKBN1CL1EX
MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-poised-for-fresh-high-in-muted-trading-as-investors-brace-for-week-of-earnings-2017-10-16/print
IBD:
http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/indexes-close-at-new-highs-dow-eyes-23000-as-six-blue-chips-rally/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/16/us-stocks-earnings-netflix-trump.html
AP:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MARKETS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2017-10-16/your-evening-briefing
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

FYI: The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority on Monday ordered Wells Fargo & Co.’s (WFC.N) clearing services and Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network to pay customers $3.4 million in restitution for sales practice issues related to unsuitable recommendations of certain investment products.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wells-fargo-finra-fine/finra-orders-wells-fargo-to-pay-clients-3-4-million-over-sales-practice-issues-idUSKBN1CL230

I recently received a written reminder from one of my IRA custodians that they apparently mailed all their clients. (I think it came from Oakmark.) The abandonment laws vary by state.
Their advice was to either (1) phone them once a year or (2) login to your account online once a year. Since I login to all my accounts at least once a year, I let it go at that. I think it’s a good practice to change passwords once or twice a year. And doing so ought to satisfy anyone looking on that you’re still alive.

As I recall, you're in Michigan. I don't know whether all states follow this rule, but in Michigan, its three year clock doesn't begin running until you're 70.5:

An IRA (Individual Retirement Account) account, Keogh plan, or 401K plan becomes distributable under the terms of the account or plan [i.e. RMDs for the IRA]. If the plan or account requires a distribution at a certain point in time, then the three-year dormancy period begins at that point.

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/2013i_2598_7.pdf
I don't know any state that has law that property escheats in less than three years, though some financial institutions may be obnoxious and freeze your account after a year of inactivity. (I made an old post somewhere about WF doing this, and making a lot of errors along the way.) So it's still a good idea to check in yearly.

@Gary,
You would complete an (Traditional, 401K, 403b, etc.) IRA to Roth IRA Conversion if the future Rate of Return (ROR) will be higher for the Roth IRA comparef to a tax deferred IRA. Article below discusses this in detail using this calculator (Optimal Retirement Planner).
From Article:

A onetime conversion of the entire IRA during the first year of retirement is technically feasible, sometimes practiced, but rarely part of an optimal plan.

Also, for strategic periodic IRA to Roth IRA conversions,

We find that in comparing two optimal plans, differing only in whether or not conversions are allowed, that there is in the neighborhood of a 1 percent improvement in the conversion plan’s disposable income compared to the non-conversion plan.

In the conclusion of article:

It would seem desirable to convert when asset prices are depressed because there is less tax paid and the state of the market is amenable to a recovery. Following the same logic, converting when asset prices are inflated would seem imprudent.

Measuring the Financial Consequences of IRA to Roth IRA Conversions

FYI: Influential bond investor Bill Gross of Janus Henderson Investors said on Monday that financial markets are artificially compressed and capitalism distorted because of the U.S. Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-funds-janushenderson/bill-gross-of-janus-blames-fed-for-fake-markets-idUSKBN1CE2FG

Hi Guys,
Being an "aimer" is very common. We all have goals. The challenge is how realistic those goals are. What are the odds of achieving those goals? Given market uncertainties, a 100% success goal is very bushy-tailed. But it is achievable if an investor is flexible to changing circumstances.
An early step in that process is to identify the likely odds of success. Monte Carlo simulators provide one useful tool to make those estimates. That tool not only yields the odds for success, but also makes estimates of end wealth, and a timeline for the portfolio failures. If those failure times are well beyond likely life expectancy, the failures are far less significant for planning purposes.
I well understand why only a 95% portfolio survival projection would be troublesome for some folks. It was for me. However, once that estimate is known, an investor could think about adjusting his withdrawal plan to alleviate that possibility.
When planning my retirement, I programmed my own version of a Monte Carlo code. I frequently calculated portfolio survival likelihoods in the mid-90% ranges. What to do? To improve that survival rate, I modified the code to reduce drawdowns by an input value (like 10%) if annual market returns were negative for some specified years. Withdrawals were increased once the markets turned positive in the simulations.
I explored many such portfolio survival issues by using my easily modified Monte Carlo code. Portfolio survival rates of very near 100% could be projected when very modest withdrawal rate flexibility was allowed. Like in so many other life situations, flexibility is a winning strategy.
My Monte Carlo calculations identified the frequency of shortfalls, the magnitudes of any shortfalls, and the timeframe of those shortfalls. These were all useful inputs for my retirement decision. The very modest adjustments needed to alleviate that unacceptable outcome gave great comfort. These additional Monte Carlo simulations cemented my retirement decision.
I believe (alternately, IMHO if you dislike "I believe") that Monte Carlo simulations would help many MFOers when considering their retirement decision.
Thanks for the Kitces reference. Be aware that he has a vested interest in the subject matter of that referenced article. He closes his piece with the following declaration:
"Michael Kitces has a financial interest in the US distribution of the Timeline app."
I have no such vested interest in Monte Carlo codes. I merely advocate that they be included as one tool to support investment decisions. They permit easy multiple sensitivity analyses. Of course, they depend on good input data ranges. They do not stand alone.
Best Wishes

I always wonder what the practical effect of such fine distinction-making is.
'For the particular kind of [prostate, breast] cancer you have, the new data show that watchful waiting outcomes are as good in terms of mortality and life quality as treatment, often better, and the number needed to treat is yada yada. Discuss with your doctor whether treatment or monitoring is right for you.'
'Return-sequence risk is always significant and badly down years at the start of your retirement can be deleterious to all of your planning. Discuss with your adviser the consequences of not planning yada yada ...'
And then what? What is the discussion? What can it change besides (dis)comfort level and moves toward drastic preventive actions? How wise is it to have 'just get rid of it' surgery or go to all laddered CDs? In the worst case, plenty wise. So is the discussion necessarily education in likelihood of worst cases?

Some of it certainly is education about worst case probabilities. There's a general belief that outcomes are better if treatment is more aggressive. Sometimes that's true, often it's not, especially given possibilities of false positives (not ill when tests say otherwise).
For example, mammograms are not too reliable with dense breast tissue. Here's a page from the American Cancer Society suggesting in that case you talk with your doctor, because on the one hand you might want to also have an MRI. But it also says that MRIs produce false positives leading to more tests and biopsies (which have their own risks).
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/screening-tests-and-early-detection/mammograms/breast-density-and-your-mammogram-report.html
Similarly, PSA tests are not especially reliable and can lead to biopsies with risks.
A good part of the conversation can simply be an exploration of what's really important to you. In some other thread was a link to an article on how the usual financial planning questions are not helpful, e.g. "would you risk a 20% loss if 2/3 of the time you'd gain 15%?" People don't know what they want or how they'd react if actually (not hypothetically) faced with a 20% loss.
So IMHO talking with a planner at length about what really concerns you and discussing the cost/benefits of different risk mitigators (e.g. immediate annuities, long term care insurance, greater cash allocations, etc.) is a good use of time.
Different people place different values on a given outcome. Worse, most people don't even have a clear idea of how they value each possible outcome.
At one end of the spectrum you have women who will have radical mastectomies because they have a genetic risk of cancer. They choose life, regardless of its quality, over all else. At the other end of the spectrum, you have men who will decline prostate cancer treatment even when faced with certain death, rather than assume any risk of impotence due to treatment.
There are real people like that. I think I can appreciate their perspectives even if I don't agree with them.
Personally, I don't want to go broke, period. In that financial sense, I take an extreme position. A magic number of, say 95% chance of success tells me nothing. I need to know what the 5% of paths look like. Then I can explore possible followup actions that would increase success to 100%.
Likewise with that doctor talk. It's difficult to follow radiation therapy with surgery if the radiation is unsuccessful, while the reverse is much easier. That's a consideration in selecting choice of treatment, if one is willing to live with the much higher likelihood of a degraded quality of life due to multiple therapies.
Knowing not only the odds but the paths of outcomes enables you to plan for dealing with possible failures. And for not doing something just because the expert, whether physician or advisor, felt it was best in his not so humble opinion.

FYI: Studies have consistently shown that dividend-paying stocks tend to outperform their non-dividend paying counterparts over time. From 1930 to 2015, roughly 43% of the S&P 500’s total return came from dividends.
Companies with long histories of paying and growing their dividends demonstrate a financial strength and consistency that makes them ideal investments for most portfolios. Investors who choose funds that target these dividend growth stocks can generate strong risk-adjusted returns over the long term.
If you’re an investor looking to generate income or take advantage of a strategy with a long-term track record of success, consider adding one of these funds to your portfolio. In case you are wondering whether mutual funds are right for you, you should read why mutual funds, in general, should be part of your portfolio
Regards,
Ted
http://mutualfunds.com/news/2015/12/10/the-top-mutual-funds-for-dividend-growth/?utm_source=MutualFunds.com&utm_campaign=bd2cebe35d-Dispatch_Weekend_Engage_09_30_2017&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_83e106a88d-bd2cebe35d-290921629

Hi msf,
Thank you for reading my post, but an especial thanks for alerting me to my error in making a double reference. The Portfolio Visualizer website provides an excellent Monte Carlo simulator, but it doesn't merit a double endorsement.
In my initial post, I meant to acknowledge a Monte Carlo simulator that is presented on the MoneyChimp website. It is very simple to use. I have referenced it in earlier postings. Here is the corrected, initial Link:
http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/volatility/retirement.hem
Thanks again for alerting me to my mistake.
When doing any financial analysis, I too am often puzzled over how extensive the data set should be in terms of timespan. The marketplace is in constant change and the relevance of data going back numerous decades is suspect.
Far too much has changed. We have morphed from an agricultural dominated economy to an industrial powerhouse. Market investing is now dominated by institutional agencies and not by individual players. Factors like these should influence the data set selection.
Depending on the scope and purpose of the research, the timeframe for the selected supportive data sets must be prudently chosen. "Garbage In, Garbage Out" applies. For most of the limited analyses that I do, I favor data from after WW II. I recognize the shortfall in numbers that that decision introduces, but I believe these data are more relevant. When doing any statistical analysis, tradeoffs of this kind always must be made. Decisions like these are not always obvious or easy.
To excite some additional responses I'll close,with this decision making quote from Donald Trump: "I have made the tough decisions, always with an eye toward the bottom line. Perhaps it's time America was run like a business."
I anticipate and await acerbic comments.
Best Wishes

With respect to tools that use real data as opposed to hypothetical random data (that downplay the possibility of multiyear bears found in historical data) being somehow inferior or limited to merely hundreds of sequences, here's some what what Kitces writes:

There’s never been any way to illustrate those alternative assumptions [e.g. "spending changes based on varying goals or changing needs"], as even the best financial planning software is still built around straight-line assumptions and Monte Carlo analysis.
Until now, as in the past year, two new software solutions for advisors have come forth ...

While those two tools are designed for advisors, what I want to highlight is that they are both based on historical data spanning a century (one using montly CRSP data back to 1920) or more (the other using DMS global data of a score of countries going back to 1900). Not small data sets, and as I read Kitces, better than any existing probability-based tools.
He goes on to note that even these tools are best used for educational purposes, not planning:

[They] are better viewed as a mechanism to teach and illustrate safe withdrawal rates, the sustainability of (steady) retirement withdrawals in the face of various market return sequences, and the impact of asset allocation ... on the sustainability of portfolio distributions. In other words, they can set the groundwork for initial client education about sequence of return risk and its consequences

Hi Guys,
Wow! This assembly of articles by financial writer Johnathan Clements is a real tour-de-force. It touches all the bases that a retiree should consider before retirement, during the decision process, and after retirement. In general, these short pieces yield excellent insights and advice.
But this impressive body of work has a significant shortfall in the area of examining alternate possible financial,scenarios. Based on my earlier submittals, I'm sure many of you can make an accurate guesstimate of what I beleve that area is.
The sequence of investment returns is critical in determining the value and survival of any portfolio during both its accumulation and withdrawal phases. In examining likely financial scenarios, Clements uses the FIRECalc tool kit to explore a limited number of those sequences. I say limited because FIRECalc deploys real historical data with various starting points. This technique generates hundreds of scenarios that have been experienced.
Given the uncertainty of future returns, even hundreds of cases that have been already recorded is simply not enough data when considering all future uncertainties. Thousands and thousands of simulations provide a more complete set of possibities. Projections must be made in terms of likelihoods and odds. Nothing more definitive is possible.
Monte Carlo tools and numerous analyses with those tools are the best way to provide those odds. These tools are readily accessible and easy to use. You need not be a mathematician to productively deploy them. In earlier posts, I have referenced these tools; some are more elegant than others but all serve their basic function well. Here is a Link to a very easy input one:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation
Another Monte Carlo simulator that requires a few more inputs is listed below:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation
Sorry for my repeated references, but perhaps some MFOers missed my past postings. Both these tools do good work.
I hope you visit them and try a few cases that represent your special,circumstances. It will be a learning experience that will illuminate some possible dangers if you do a couple of parametric input scenarios. Good luck! Doing these analyses will reduce your need for luck and will help guide your investment and retirement decisions.
Best Wishes

FYI: If you just entered the workforce, it’s time to start preparing for retirement. Over the next four decades, you might pull in tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. An October 2012 Census Bureau study estimates that those with a bachelor’s degree have average lifetime earnings of $2.4 million, figured in today’s dollars.
Of course, it’s lucky you have all that income coming in, because ahead of you lies life’s toughest financial task: amassing enough money so you can retire in comfort. In dry economic terms, your working career is about accumulating enough financial capital, so that one day you’ll no longer need the income from your human capital. This, alas, is a task that most Americans are not good at.
Want to do better? As you ponder how to pay for retirement, it’s helpful to think about your life in three stages—your 20s, 30s and 40s, your 50s and early 60s, and age 65 and beyond—which is how this part of the guide is divvied up.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.humbledollar.com/money-guide/retirement/