Came across this old useful index card. For most (all?) investors, this is an easy and useful advice to follow.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/09/16/this-4x6-index-card-has-all-the-financial-advice-youll-ever-need/

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Tax professionals are ringing alarm bells that a House proposal unveiled last week deserves financial advisers' attention. Should the measure become law, taxpayers who decided to convert a Roth IRA to a traditional, or pre-tax, individual retirement account, would no longer be allowed to elect to change it back to a Roth within a certain time frame. And that means advisers should be checking in on clients about Roths before the start of 2018, said Ed Slott, founder of Ed Slott's Elite IRA Advisor Group in a conversation with InvestmentNews reporter Greg Iacurci.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=AH8BWtDnA8y3jwTe5qeAAQ&q=Ed+Slott+on+Roth+IRA+conversions+becoming+permanent&oq=Ed+Slott+on+Roth+IRA+conversions+becoming+permanent&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1.4590.4590.0.7188.3.2.0.0.0.0.93.93.1.2.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..1.2.178.6..35i39k1.85.2pswNHS_oXI

FYI: We again asked experts to help us answer readers’ questions about saving for college. This month, it starts with an overarching concern parents have about “529” college-savings plans when thinking about how to pay for school.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-529s-affect-financial-aid-1509937920?tesla=y

FYI: First came the Panama Papers, which revealed personal financial information about wealthy individuals and public officials that had previously been kept private.
Now, the latest shitstorm to come from a hack of a law firm is the Paradise Papers: The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists received the world’s second biggest data leak, consisting of offshore financial records, purporting to expose a global array of corruption:
Regards,
Ted
http://ritholtz.com/2017/11/paradise-papers/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheBigPicture+(The+Big+Picture)
MarketWatch Slant:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/paradise-papers-6-things-to-know-about-report-exposing-tax-havens-of-the-mega-rich-2017-11-05/print

Swedroe is cherry picking studies:
https://db.com/newsroom_news/2016/ghp/esg-and-financial-performance-aggregated-evidence-from-more-than-200-empirical-studies-en-11363.htm

Dear friends,
I'm delighted that a number of folks joined us this month who we haven't heard from in a while.

• Sam Lee reflected on the tiff involving Morningstar and the Wall Street Journal.
  
• Mark Wilson shared some brief and welcome reflections on the capital gains season
  
• Dennis Baran wrote a Launch Alert for American Beacon Shapiro Equity Opportunities Fund (SHXPX), which has a phenomenal track record as a private strategy
  
• Likewise, I wrote one for Northern Trust Quality US E.S.G. (NUESX), a really low-cost, low minimum way to target two useful attributes at once: a high quality corporation and a record of avoiding problematic behavior.
  
• Sean Stannard-Stockton participated in an Elevator Talk about his Ensemble Fund (ENSBX)
  
• We profiled Fuller & Thaler Behavioral Small Cap Equity (FTHNX) and, in the process, get to play with Charles's rolling three year average metric to see how consistent the fund has been compared to its neighbors.
  
• Charles debuted a new Premium correlation tool which allows you to identify category outliers; it's an interesting way to find out whether you need to discount a fund's ratings since there's a pretty good chance that a fund with no correlation to its peers or benchmark is probably miscategorized. It is, at the very least, driven by forces unrelated to those driving the category.
  
• Ed vents, just a bit, about the cultural elements that permit sexual harassment in the financial services industry; he's not sure that we've seen the end of this one.

Hope you find some useful nuggets in their somewhere.
David

This has to be disheartening to Billionaires (or even Millionaires) when the very thing (their financial valuation) is trash. What are future Trillion-aires to do?
I still think many Hundred-aires and Thousand-aires find cash a necessary part of their everyday life and are impacted greatly by its "trashiness".
Here is an interesting read on today's financial alchemy which, in part, explains why "Cash is Trash" and other assets aren't much better.
Volatility and the Alchemy of Risk:
Artemis_Volatility+and+the+Alchemy+of+Risk_2017
Ray on Volatility:

FYI: Robo advisors are undoubtedly responsible for some of the most important changes in the financial industry over the last few years. More transparency, lower fees and at least part of the rise in passive investing can be traced to them.
But now there’s a bigger question. Are robos becoming the more expensive option?
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-26/in-the-battle-for-low-fee-financial-advice-diy-beats-the-robos

I agree but I do not think that is the general opinion of most people and financial advisers and certainly not what is in most advertisements for mutual funds. M* ratings are usually the only featured information piece of any fund ad. Most people think they will predict future performance.

@sma3, I understand, but the ads I see like that are in the print edition of Barron's, and I've never seen one that didn't include a note with a description of what the star ratings are. I guess most people need to learn to read the notes. It's probably confusing since star ratings in other walks of life (movies, books, etc.) are clearly opinions.
In any case, the star ratings are still the wrong data set if evaluating M*'s forward-looking ratings of funds is the objective.
@old_joe, thanks for the additional excerpts for us non-subscribers.

I agree but I do not think that is the general opinion of most people and financial advisers and certainly not what is in most advertisements for mutual funds. M* ratings are usually the only featured information piece of any fund ad. Most people think they will predict future performance.

To put this in perspective, the new DOL regs for fiduciaries allow different levels of compensation for selling different categories of products, up to a certain level.
BICE allows higher compensation for selling complex products that require more work to explain to the customers. (DOL FAQ: "variation [in commission] is permitted ... based on neutral factors, such as the time and complexity associated with recommending investments".) This arises from the reasonable compensation rule.
At the same time, BICE forbids the additional compensation to be so high as to create an incentive to push these products. More generally (again from DOL FAQ) "financial institutions cannot 'use or rely upon quotas, appraisals, performance or personnel actions, bonuses, contests, special awards, differential compensation or other actions or incentives that are intended or would reasonably be expected to cause Advisers to make recommendations that are not in the Best Interest of the Retirement Investor.'"
If it takes someone twice as much time and effort to sell product A as product B, and compensation is equal, that person has a disincentive to sell (or "push", as Ms. Morgenson wrote) product A. That is true regardless of how much more or less profitable one product or the other is for the company. Unequal compensation for different products can be reasonable. Whether the differences merely equalize the sales incentives for different products or bias them (presumably toward the more profitable product) is a matter of the magnitude of the differences in compensation.
According to the DOL, the mere existence of compensation differences does not automatically create an incentive to sell one over the other, Ms. Morgenson aside. Yet she leaps immediately to the conclusion that it must, with no numbers, no explanation.
The TIAA Form ADV Part 2A that she cited mirrors the DOL regs: "TIAA’s compensation philosophy aims to reward Advisors with appropriate compensation, recognizing the degree of effort generally required of the Advisor in gathering and retaining client assets in appropriate TIAA accounts, products and services offered by TIAA affiliates."
Ms. Morgenson also leaps from writing about "advisers" in the first paragraph (who are bound by fiduciary duty, BICE, etc. not to be incentivized to "push" higher profit products) to "sales representatives" in the second paragraph, who are under no such constraints. Which one is it? Is the undisclosed complaint talking about sales reps or advisers?
That matters because, as I stated before, while this doesn't help TIAA's reputation, it doesn't paint them as an exceptionally bad actor. I've written before about Fidelity's reps having similar compensation schedules. Here's Fidelity's 2017 Introduction to Representatives’ Compensation.
"Certain representatives also receive differing compensation for different product types, for example, managed account and insurance product sales, which require more in-depth engagement with clients, provide more compensation than products such as money market funds." For example, Fidelity reps get quarterly compensation of 1 basis point for investments in MMFs, while10 basis points for investments in Fidelity's Portfolio Advisory Services and/or insurance products.
For anyone who's suggested going to a brokerage to discuss ideas "for free", tell me again how great a bargain that is.

While I enjoy Ms. Morgenson's columns and generally agree with them, they nevertheless tend to resemble hit pieces with the occasional questionable statement or two. Never factually wrong, but laden with innuendo.
She decries the "often hefty costs associated with TIAA funds". Yet elsewhere in the article she she states that "the average asset-weighted expense ratio on TIAA’s mutual funds was 0.32 percent in 2016", and acknowledges that this was "lower than the 0.57 percent mutual fund industry average".
She attempts some jiujitsu by arguing that this is still too high (though not calling the fees "hefty" in this section). Here's how she does that:
:
"Although lower than the 0.57 percent mutual fund industry average, it is more expensive than a low-cost provider like Vanguard, whose average expense ratio was 0.11 percent in 2016."
She gives M* as her data source. Here's what M* had to say:

The asset-weighted average fee of Vanguard’s funds fell to 0.11% from 0.14% during the past three years [2013-2016]. This 21% decline was the largest percentage decline among the largest fund providers, thanks to large flows into Vanguard’s low-priced ETFs and index funds and falling fees in some of Vanguard’s largest funds as the fund company passes improving efficiencies to fundholders. During that period, Vanguard has strengthened its leading position, as its market share rose to 22% from 18%. Vanguard’s 2016 asset-weighted average expense ratio of 0.11% was significantly below that of the second-lowest-cost provider, SPDR State Street, at 0.19%, followed by Dimensional Fund Advisors at 0.36%.

What we glean from this is that (a) you need to look at active/passive mix before chastising a family for high fees or lauding it for low ones, and (b) TIAA's 0.32% is right in line with other low cost families. Is Vanguard the only family that advisors are now allowed to use? Who are these other low cost providers that are like Vanguard?
That's not to say TIAA may not have been taken some dubious actions. Likely enough to take some of the shine off its white knight image. But ISTM not enough (or at least not enough documented) to paint it as an especially bad actor.
The one complaint she linked to seems to have merit IMHO. We have to take her word on the whistle-blower complaint though, since it is currently confidential. We don't know what else is in it, just as we didn't know the additional M* data that I gave above. (Yup, there's my own innuendo, without AFAIK misstating facts.)
To repeat, I like Ms. Morgenson's columns, I think she does a great job at digging through the underside of the financial world. But I don't take them (or any columnist piece) as gospel.

I'm bumping up this thread, because there's great info in it, and I'm not the only one looking for cash alternatives right now.
Here's a new question: anyone know cash-alternative funds which have a track record that extends back through the 2008 global financial crisis? A whole lot of ultra-short bond funds crashed and burned then. I'd feel better parking my money with a manager who successfully navigated that crisis.
Of course PIMIX/PONDX did well, and Ivascyn is maybe the best bond manager around, but I don't really consider that a cash alternative. It takes lots of risks, and even if so far it has managed them brilliantly, I want something more conservative for this bucket.
Right now I am using RPHYX and SUBFX, and I'm happy with both, but neither has a record back to 2008.

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.