I think of ALL the financial pron peddlers Kiplinger probably is the worst. I mean it has the least pron. That's not like saying much but that's all like the choice we made in the last presidential election.

@bee, thanks much. Doctrinaire people, man.
You obviously have suppleness and emotional understanding as a parent.
Yeah, I am not considering this as an investment except perhaps at the lower levels, and think that the 'effectively' person is mostly rationalizing.
Depends on the RE market too, of course. For my kids I looked back 45y and ownership of three houses in the Boston suburbs and calculate that the total return had been (only) ~7.5% per year, and that in a time of hugely rising house pricing. (And flat the last decade for this last house we are in, so ~9% before that. I am, without any foundation, positing that the tax breaks are a wash against mortgage costs, repairs, taxes, etc.).
Regardless, none of this strategy of hers is ideal, and I myself would have advised her to keep on renting and saving. But that is not such a prudent option, really, for a variety of the usual reasons (age and life stage, marriage and children planning, in-laws' needs, etc.).
The charge of horrible 'don't ever do that, you dope' financial misplanning just seemed so wack, not to say offensive, to me. As though Benz shoulda been prevented from writing the article in the first place.

From my original post http://www.wallstreetrant.com/2017/04/how-global-investor-allocations-have.html

@hank. If you can tell how long it was before $56.69 became $100 again? Might be instructive.
Perhaps then we can ask the question, if one sold DODGX when value fell to $90, and then bought it back after it crossed $100 again, ...
I think you get my drift. Funds don't keep falling from $100 to $90, up again to $100, back down to $90, again and again and again. The risk of "not being invested" is way overblown by the financial industry because it risks their revenue stream from our assets.
Fool me once, shame on you (2000-2002). Fool me twice (2007-2009) shame on Me. Fool me thrice (? - ?), shame on Who?
My ANALysis told me I should be 66% invested few weeks back. I kept selling my 401k assets down, AS LONG AS the funds I was invested had their NAVs decreasing. I made it down to 80% invested, never made it down to 66%. Those funds I didn't sell actually helped my portfolio performance as should be expected. Now my ANALysis tells me to be 100% invested, I'm creeping back in AS LONG AS the funds I'm invested in have their NAVs rising.
This is the definition of common sense. My name is VF and I approve this message.

@msf I'm suggesting that perhaps we need to change the narrative. Investors should not have "expectations". They should always expect the unexpected.
"Buy and Hold", "Value Investing", etc. may have merits of their own, but they are in Isolation. Financial Advisors (telling people where to invest), Financial Planners (how to generate income stream for retirees), etc. are professions that have been "created" by the industry.
Some of us like me learnt it the hard way and I think the long way. And that is if one is going to invest in the market, don't do it because his neighbor is doing it. One HAS to go and get an understanding of how investing/markets/etc work. One does not have to get a PhD in it, but one has to have enough knowledge. My better half has a PhD, but has no clue about any of this. I wake up in the middle of most nights in a cold sweat with the scenario I'm dead, and she is the hapless victim various Financial Asswisers and Financial Plunderers.
You know how much money you have. You know how much loss you can tolerate. Educate yourself on the RISK of various investments. THAT is in your control. RETURNS are NOT in your control. So stop making assumptions, worse, stop letting OTHERS makes assumptions on your behalf what/if/how etc. you will need. I'm simply appalled when I hear "How much money do you think you need in retirement" question is asked by Financial Planner to an individual. If the individual does not know the answer to that question, then I'm very sorry, but I have no sympathy for them, and they deserve what they get. I've even shared that opinion with my wife, unfortunately she's my wife, so while I may not sympathize with her after I'm dead, which would be impossible, I still worry about it.
WAKE UP PEOPLE! Sometimes unemployment rate has to go up. Let's put most Financial Bullshitters out of business.

Morningstar introduced medal (and neutral and negative) ratings in 2011. So asking what medal, if any, a fund had 15 years ago is meaningless. The predecessor to medals was analyst pick or pan.
I haven't found an analyst pick list going back quite that far, but here's one from a decade ago (2007). The site appears to have more recent ones as well.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/morningstar/advisor_2007fall/index.php?startid=82
Here's the search that will get you these books. Just change the year (2007) in the URL to the year (between 2007 and 2012) that you're interested in. Then look at the contents of the "book" for Mutual Fund Analyst Picks to get you to the right page.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Morningstar+analyst+picks+2007+site:nxtbook.com

@BenWP: Bespoke is considered one of the best sources of market and stock information on Wall St. I only link their free info, and like many other financial websites they have some material for free along with a premium package for a fee. Granted much of the data is short term in nature, however; might I suggest you put a cloths pin on your nose and continue reading their links. Here is a relink of the Barron's interview Pual Hickey and Justin Walters Bespoke founders. (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search) "Another Year of Double-Digit Gains"
https://www.google.com/#q=Another+Year+of+Double-Digit+Gains+Barron's
Regards,
Ted

If I were seeking financial advice, I think I would trust someone named Jack Bogle more than someone who calls himself "The Linkster." Bogle's calculations are based on earnings growth, dividend yields and valuation. Those are the fundamental units of return for those who believe stocks move on anything besides speculation. Simply saying well stocks returned 10% annually or whatever annually in the past, therefore they will produce such returns indefinitely in the future is assuming past performance is always prelude to the future without any analysis of the underlying cause for that performance. If the cause is earnings growth, valuation and dividend yields, and valuations are much higher than they have been in the past and dividend yields are much lower while earnings though high may have peaked, then it is logical to assume lower returns than historical ones going forward.
There are of course a number of wildcards here, but one thing Bogle doesn't do is make short term predictions. In the short-term markets always move on speculation. In the long-term, fundamentalists like Bogle believe stocks move on earnings yields--which is the inverse of the p/e ratio--and dividend yields relative to inflation and interest rates. Inflation, interest rates, taxes--this year's wild cards--and geopolitical events are always unpredictable and could throw any prediction off--long or short. Ideally, a prediction based on fundamentals should be made for a full market/economic cycle--at least five years--and factor in some sort of inflation and interest rate expectation. And still those can be grossly off. But at least making a prediction based on current stock valuation and yields is forward looking as opposed to simply looking at historical performance which is backwards looking.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Distrust between school districts and unions, as well as potential financial incentives, factor into lack of reform.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=In+K-12+403(b)+plans,+employees+and+their+unions+can+be+their+own+worst+enemy

Hi Guys,
That's really an eye-catching title. It is sure to win a wide readership. It did exactly that with me.
Many techniques and schemes exist to beat Index returns. However, overtime, most of them fail. One favorite method is to use market timing signals, but market " timer's Hall of Fame is an empty room." That is a quote from financial author Jane Bryant Quinn. It is an accurate summary of an industry that hasn't deliver on its promises.
If Ted posted this reference earlier I apologize for this repeat. But I just discovered it, and it summarizes much actionable historical data in a few well constructed thoughts. I hope you visit this Link:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trangho/2017/04/12/how-to-beat-90-of-mutual-fund-managers-in-the-long-run/#211dc2074257
So most active fund managers don't score well when contrasted against their Index targets. That's not a shocking outcome. In fact, given the expenses of doing that task just about guarantees that shortfall conclusion. Indeed, most will and do fail.
A 90% headwind is a tough challenge for me also. I suspect it is equally difficult for most MFOers. The bottom line is that most of us would do better in the investment universe if we simply defaulted into Index products rather than trying to outdistance the Indices. Our failure rates are just much too high in terms of the returns shortfalls and the time we commit to this losing game. Of course, exceptions exist and some of those rare exceptions post here (or are they miscalculating or misrepresenting their results?).
Enjoy the article.
Best Regards

So "Carillon Tower" is part of Raymond James, in other words Scout is now part of a publically-traded financial firm with a pretty sleazy history, much as I appreciate Jeffrey Saut's market commentary.

FYI: In professional sports, players are supremely talented. Yet even all-stars play under coaches. It's the same for your children when it comes to personal finance, including their retirement planning down the road.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/retirement/7-steps-toward-financial-literacy-for-your-children/

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1105128/000168028917000111/20170418scoutfunds497.htm
497 1 20170418scoutfunds497.htm
Scout Investments
Scout International Fund
Scout Emerging Markets Fund
Scout Global Equity Fund
Scout Equity Opportunity Fund
Scout Mid Cap Fund
Scout Small Cap Fund
Scout Low Duration Bond Fund
Scout Core Bond Fund
Scout Core Plus Bond Fund
Scout Unconstrained Bond Fund
(collectively, the "Funds")
Supplement dated April 20, 2017 to the Prospectus dated October 31, 2016, as supplemented
The following supplements the information about the Funds' investment adviser, Scout Investments, Inc. ("Scout"), included in the Prospectus. Scout is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UMB Financial Corporation ("UMB").
On April 20, 2017, UMB announced that it signed a definitive agreement to sell Scout to Carillon Tower Advisers, Inc. (the "Transaction"). The Transaction is subject to certain regulatory approvals, as well as other conditions to closing. In connection with this announcement, the Funds' Board of Trustees will meet to consider various matters related to the Transaction affecting the Funds. The Funds' Prospectus will be further supplemented to announce the Board's determinations.
You should keep this Supplement for future reference. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by calling (800) 996-2862.
Scout Investments

I see @Charles's points. Other recent threads or at least posts speak of ETFs that "change stripes" or purport to follow an index no one has ever heard of. The same could be said of DSENX and DLEUX. Are these funds the equivalent of what in my field used to be called "the latest crazy idea from France"? Needless to say, France has declined in more ways than one and it certainly is not generating any new intellectual fervor. Marine Le Pen is a throwback to populist movements that have often shaken France. Will the CAPE/Schiller craze prove to be no more than the latest crazy idea from Wall Street?
As for investments I don't understand, which seem to be the brain children of financial engineering, I'm leery but fascinated. As for genetic engineering, I'm generally OK but my wife bombards me with links to anti-GMO sites and won't allow GMO food in the house. I mention this because I own DSENX even though I can't fathom the managers' methods and I think GMO products improve the world, all the while not understanding the science. What's a humanities guy to do in this world? Go around the neighborhood and buy shares in businesses I like à la Peter Lynch? I can hear the answer already: buy index funds and keep your nutty ideas to yourself (LOL).

Hi @Junkster,
S&P 500:
Jan 1, 1984 166.40
Jan 1, 1983 144.30
Jan 1, 1982 117.30
Jan 1, 1981 133.00
Jan 1, 1980 110.90
I have not dug through old data, but recall the end of August in 1982 as the turn around and the beginning of the upward run in U.S. equity after the beating of the mid-1970's.
An aside note, not directly related and may not be of any value, but the mid range of the boomers in 1992 was about 36 years old finding decent average earning/wage power at the time for perhaps the next 20 years before the slow turn down in earning power. Boomers, of course, have entered into the retirement phase and others entering at a 10,000/day rate, being 4 million/year. The reported birth numbers from 1946-1964 for the U.S. was about 76 million. A question as to whether there is enough money among this group to help support either equity or bond markets to the positive side. We here have read the reports of low savings rates for many boomers; and so there may not be enough power in this group to support any market area(s). The flip side being that the output/withdrawal period is in play, versus the prior period of input/investing. Whose/what money is going to support this withdrawal in order to support equity/bond returns to the positive side going forward???
Bond yield range: The current yields below have remained in this spread range for some time now; being about .6%; and traveling together. I do not recall any breakout in the 30 year to extend the yield above and beyond this .6% spread from the 10 year, for at least the past 6 months to 1 year period. For my non financial background and IMHO; I read this as continued low inflation as well as other twitches and wiggles, which may be related to high equity valuations and the big money (pension funds, foreign central banks, etc.) still maintaining "safe ground" and purchases while Euro area bond yields remain very low.
10 Year 2.25%
30 Year 2.90%
Note: most investment grade bonds lost a small piece of price ground today.
A few late in the day musings.
Take care,
Catch

A good thing to know about a 529 plan owned by a grandparent:

If a 529 plan is owned by a grandparent, a noncustodial parent or anybody else other than the student or a dependent student’s custodial parent, it is not reported as an asset on the FAFSA.

529 ownership matters:
https://edvisors.com/plan-for-college/saving-for-college/529-college-savings-plans/financial-aid/
fastweb.com/financial-aid/articles/how-do-grandparent-owned-529-college-savings-plans-affect-financial-aid-eligibility
Also, here's a EFC (Expected Family Contribution) Calculator:
savingforcollege.com/financial-aid-calculator/

Weirdest interview ever:

Of (writer meant "If") you talk to advisors in the field or experts in technology, experts in the field, they're talking about the latest financial planning software, or the hot new rebalancing product. They're not talking about exponential technologies, which is an entirely different conversation.
So most people are unaware of the field of exponential technologies, and have no knowledge that this ETF exists, or why it’s different from all the others. I think for both of those reasons, it’s not on the radar of many in the industry.

My question as the reader, "What is Exponential Technology?"
Edelman can use the term, but nowhere in the article does he (or the interviewer) define it. Nor does he explain how he filters for ET when he buys companies that have it.
Some how 197 companies appear to have it according to his EFT XT's portfolio. The top ten holdings amount to a mere 6% of the EFT's AUM...not very concentrated.
He personally (I assume Edelmen Financial) holds 75% of the EFT (down from 100% when he created it the ETF). I will assume it has been pedaled quite heavily to his "sheeple" (who I'm sure have heard of it).
I've heard enough, I'll pass.
In XT's short history (2 years) it appears less impressive than "Unexponential Technology" ETF, QQQ:

FYI: Ric Edelman, founder and chairman of Edelman Financial Services, has published eight books. His latest, “The Truth About Your Future: The Money Guide You Need Now, Later, and Much Later,” targets the future of personal finance and what investors need to know for the technological revolution already occurring around us.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/edelman-truth-about-your-future?nopaging=1
M* Snapshot XT:
http://www.morningstar.com/etfs/ARCX/XT/quote.html

I'm going to guess from your use of the word "mirroring" that you're looking at the new AlphaClone Mirror Portfolios Wrap Fee Program. You pay 0.196% in wrap fees for a portfolio of $383,333. That's $750. You'll pay $750 for any lesser amount as well. On a larger portfolio, you'll pay $750 plus 0.15% or less (tiered rates) on the extra amount.
That doesn't seem excessive to me. But you need to commit over $1/3M to get these economies of scale. Note that this is just a discretionary account, there's no financial planning included.
There's a clear conflict of interest, as 10% - 40% of the portfolio will include ETFs licensed and (except for one) advised by by AlphaClone. AlphaClone receives 0.95% which it uses to pay the index licensing fees (presumably to itself), to hire a subadviser to run the ETFs, and to retain as profits.
These are passively managed ETFs (per prospectus), but the Mirror Portfolios program says that these ETFs are "utilize[d] ... where appropriate to serve as the 'more active' component within the equity asset class."
So I'd be careful in thinking that the wrap program uses "active investments".
AlphaClone is essentially one person, Mazin Jadallah (the corp says it has just one employee in its form ADV).
While the ETF prospectus lists several ETFs, only two are significant enough to hit M*'s radar. The older one is ALFA, a 2* long/short ETF that has underperformed the S&P 500 from inception (5/31/12) to 12/31/15 (per prospectus) 12.34% to 15.55%. M* reports its three year performance (ending 4/11/17) as 1.83% vs. 11.36% for S&P 500. Its costs include not only the 0.95% management fee, but shorting costs of an additional 2.20% (per M* and per prospectus). According to M*, risk high (runs hot and cold).
The other fund on M*'s website is ALFI. This is a newer ETF. Not much info on this.