FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
A nightmare scenario has haunted asset managers for years: What if the flood of cash that's poured into debt mutual funds since 2008 suddenly reverses, leaving a field of financial-market carnage behind?
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-10-18/mutual-funds-get-surge-pricing-for-costly-bond-flight

When a combined $58 million in lobbying dollars from the financial industry are targeted to the Senate Finance Committee ( for 2016 PACs and individual campaigns), I do not have to think very hard about whether money talks. Like another poster at MFO, it doesn't take much like this for me to become cynical. It is such an obvious affront.

FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
Without much fanfare, there’s been a trillion-dollar upheaval in a favored corner of America’s financial system: the money-market funds where institutional and retail investors park cash to earn returns better than bank deposits offer. The turmoil has been driven by new rules that go into effect this week. They’re meant to prevent a repeat of the crisis in September 2008, when investors found that funds they thought were as safe as banks were anything but.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-12/new-rules-transform-2-7-trillion-of-money-funds-quicktake-q-a

A couple great threads on the new DOL rules. (I'm still struggling to fully digest the longer one. :))
As a practical matter, I wonder (but don't know) how many regular readers here will be impacted by the changes. Suspect most who come here tend to be older self-directed investors relying largely on no-load ETFs or mutual funds. Many, it seems, do use broker-sponsored online portfolio design services (probably the wrong term). But I'd guess fewer than 10% are paying a human for advice at this point in their investing life.
There are some here who are financial advisors or pseudo-advisors. For them the ramifications are very real. I commiserate with anyone forced to deal with higher paperwork loads, face increased litigation, or jump through unnecessary hoops.

FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
Every financial advisor in the country has been debating the Department of Labor's new fiduciary rule, arguing about whether or not it's really good for investors. For my part, I’m on the record here and here saying that the rule -- which requires brokers who work with retirement accounts to put their clients’ financial interests ahead of their own -- is a boon for investors.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-10-11/thank-you-merrill-lynch

Securities lending is indeed a part of the structure of most ETFs. While Vanguard returns all of the proceeds above its internal costs for this lending to ETF shareholders, so does Schwab, although in Schwab's case it uses an outside unaffiliated vendor to do the lending, which takes a cut of the lending proceeds. Schwab keeps none of these proceeds for itself. BlackRock is a different story, keeping a portion of the lending proceeds for itself, although the amount is small enough that 22% of Schwab's equity ETFs beat their benchmarks instead of merely tracking them. The financial risks of this lending is another story entirely and as your Forbes' article points out, Kevin, different fund companies have different policies on what they will lend.
Regarding the analysis in Deep Capture, I should add that its original author, Patrick Byrne is the CEO of Overstock.com, and a controversial figure himself:
garyweiss.blogspot.com/2016/05/overstockcom-ceo-patrick-byrne-loses.html

Keep Your Bonds, but Reduce the Risks JOURNAL REPORTS: FUNDS & ETFS
Some advisers are wary of using bonds in client portfolios. Here is why you still should own them and how to do it right.
As strong demand has pushed up bond valuations—depressing their already low yields—some investors and financial advisers are saying “enough” and are turning their backs on the sector.
Not so fast, say many bond professionals.
1. When bonds make sense...not just worry about yield. “If you own bonds for diversification, income isn’t something that you should [focus] on,” says Laura Thurow, head of asset manager research at Robert W. Baird & Co.
2. Know where risks may lie....In relation to Treasurys, junk-bond yields are roughly in line with historic averages, so they’re not in bubble territory, says Rob Balkema, who manages multiasset funds at Russell Investments.
3. Spread risk in a portfolio.. it is possible to balance them, says Kathleen Gaffney, who manages Eaton Vance Multisector Income Fund (EVBAX). She suggests dividing your bond portfolio into roughly equal parts, each dedicated to a particular type of risk
4. Diversify your sources ... Aviance Capital Management, in Sarasota, Fla., portfolio manager Jeff Walker likes preferred shares.... Convertibles also gyrate less than stocks, though they do move in sympathy with them, says Katrina Lamb, head of investment strategy at wealth-management firm MV Financial, Bethesda. Md.
5. Bonds at lower valuations
Investors who want to temper the risk of principal loss could put some money into bonds that aren’t trading at high valuations. One with potential for appreciation is the U.S. Treasury inflation-protected securities, or TIPS, sector, says Mr. Worah of Pimco.'
....core U.S. consumer-price inflation already has risen above 2%, and Pimco believes it is likely to stay there for a while.
“The factors that have been keeping inflation down, the commodity price correction and strength in the dollar, have faded,” Mr. Worah says. “TIPS are the cheapest government bond” and are worth owning by themselves, he adds.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/keep-your-bonds-but-reduce-the-risks-1476064923
Goldman Asset Likes Inflation Bonds Amid Best Rally Since 2012
Wes Goodman, Bloomberg
“We like them a lot,” Mike Swell, the co-head of global portfolio management for fixed income in New York, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television Tuesday. “Investors are catching up to what a lot of us in markets already know, that inflation is picking up.”
TIPS have returned 6.9 percent in 2016, heading for their biggest gain since 2012, according to Bank of America Corp. indexes. Nominal Treasuries have returned 4.3 percent this year.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-12/goldman-asset-likes-inflation-bonds-amid-best-rally-since-2012
Goldman Sachs Infl Protected Secs R6 GSRUX
iShares Barclays TIPS Bond Fund (Etf) TIP
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSEARCA:TIP&ei=GLL9V6GcAYepmAHR_qf4Cg

@bee, Nothing to disagree with Dr. Byrne's points. Wall Street has always had political allies who were purchased with contributions. And too many of the folks on Bloomberg and CNBC are good looking teleprompter readers and at most journalists, and definitely not economists or financial experts.
And from the WSJ: "The ETF With the 0.00% Fee”
Use the top article on this SEARCH.
Kevin

A whole lotta advisors are planning to get out of the biz. And a whole lotta investors are about to get hit with a surprise. Or two. Or three. Here's my report: http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/personal-finance/are-you-one-of-the-small-investors-that-37-of-financial-advisors-are-planning-to-dump/

Thanks @Kevindow for that article. Most investors are clueless to this aspect of the financial world. Security lending has had a few issues to deal with, specifically unsettled trades or FTD (Failure to Deliver).
Here's a website that "scratches the surface" of the challenges that face the security lending and security trading industry.
deepcapture.com/category/introduction-an-overview-of-deep-capture/
The Presentation:
deepcapture

Low ER on high volume is still a very profitable business model for Vanguard and other large volume/low fee houses. Reminds me that high volumes of money (QE) loaned at record low interest rates is still a very profitable business model for banks and other financial institutions.

@MSF: You seem to know a lot about mutual fund distribution issues. Could it be that a wrap fee of 1% could work better in that it aligns the incentives of the financial advisor and the client? The typical criticism when financial advisors get compensated via loads is that it gives the financial advisor an incentive to churn their client's account. The financial advisor would not have such incentive if he gets paid via an asset fee.

If I recall correctly, somewhere in the 1990s or early 2000s, American Funds F shares (before they split into F-1 and F-2) were available through some second tier brokerages. That is, not Fidelity or Schwab, but some of the more obscure brokerages of the time.
Regarding loads and advice. Over at M*, John Rekenthaler wrote a column a few years ago (that I cannot seem to find) detailing why loads can actually work better (read: cost less) than other forms of compensation for small investors.
What I could find was a more recent paragraph by him summarizing his position (with which I concur):

While most financial writers--and many if not most of this column's readers--believe that commission-based advice is inherently worse than advice that is purchased by ongoing fees (mostly asset-based, sometimes flat), I do not. A front-end load fund that is bought and held for the long term is a relatively cheap investment and often a relatively good one at that. What matters is not the payment structure for the advice, but if it is offered solely in the client's best interest and comes at a fair cost.

Emphasis added.
He goes on to sketch figures comparing access and costs of wrap accounts vs. loads, though in the broader context of discussing the new DOL fiduciary rule.
http://ibd.morningstar.com/article/article.asp?id=718083&CN=brf295,http://ibd.morningstar.com/archive/archive.asp?inputs=days=14;frmtId=12, brf295
Since I don't seek advice (heck, I actively run away from anyone pushing advice at me), this "back to the future" sales channel of American Funds is attractive to me, as it may be for many people here. But it won't work for everyone.

FYI: The $44 billion Templeton Global Bond Fund (TGBAX) is probably not what most financial advisers would expect from a strategy in such a bland and stoic category as world bond funds.
But, based on the pace of money flowing out of the fund over the past few years, advisers and investors are catching on that this is far from a plain vanilla global fixed-income portfolio.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161005/BLOG12/161009971?template=printart
M* Snapshot:TPINX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/TPINX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot:TPINX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/TPINX
TPINX Ranks #44 In The (WB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/world-bond/templeton-global-bond-fund/tpinx

Worrying about a brokerage firm going belly up, especially one like Schwab, is not really warranted, Vintage. Your holdings are protected under SIPC, even cash up to a very high amount. The issue I have with the smaller firms (like Scottrade) is they are likely takeover targets, as we are now seeing. They may or may not provide great service to clients, but we should be mindful of the financial disadvantage under which they operate. Each company has some things we might really like and use a lot, but that can change pretty quickly. If, as many expect, a lot of active funds will be biting the dust in the next few years because of performance, lack of dollars, M&A, legal problems, etc., it might be prudent to look at what index funds and ETFs are available at the bigger custodians, not to mention expenses for each, trading costs, trading restrictions, and overall account expenses/fees, and technology available to customers. I am not saying your fears are unjustified. I am suggesting that all investors should understand the ever-smaller margins firms have to deal with and the probable decisions that result from that, especially the smaller custodians that each of us might like. Another factor in all this are the ever-expanding federal regulations forced upon all in the securities industry. Dodd-Frank was a killer, and the newer regs just get more and more numerous, no matter how redundant, unnecessary, and strange many of them are. They all cost firms mega dollars to enact, monitor, and report, not to mention the hundreds of hours and larger and larger compliance staff needed to oversee. Companies have to offset these ever-growing expenses somehow, whether it is higher fees to customers/clients or even deciding a merger/acquisition is a better option.
We deal with client account transfers on a daily basis, and it is still surprising the road blocks different custodians throw at account owners. Fees here, fees there. Fidelity's comment about not waiving a fee is baloney. This is just not true. But think what it means to Fidelity, a $50 fee times many thousands of accounts is a nice chunk of change, and that is just the tip of the iceberg for them.

To the extent that the Fund seeks to invest in the securities of Indian companies, it currently intends to do so by investing in shares of the Mauritius Subsidiary, a wholly-owned, investment holding company registered with and regulated by the Mauritius Financial Services Commission that is also managed by the Adviser. The Mauritius Subsidiary was formed to allow the Fund’s investments in Indian companies to benefit from a favorable tax treaty between Mauritius and India. In order to do so, the Mauritius Subsidiary will seek to maintain residency in Mauritius. Please see “Risks of Investment through Mauritius” under “More About the Fund’s Risks – Principal Risks of the Funds” below for additional information.

Hmmmmmm.
(page9) http://www.citynationalrochdalefunds.com/Content/pdfs/prospectus/CNR_Statutory_Prospectus_Class_Y_2016.pdf

@learningcurve Yes, apparently Fidelity has found that @Junkster is one of those special individuals with unique financial wellness needs, and they have tailored one of their programs to address his concerns (a.k.a. good old-fashioned incentive pay). :)
http://www.plansponsor.com/Fidelity-Finds-Individuals-Have-Unique-Financial-Wellness-Needs/

Dan:
We are probably in agreement as to 'diminished work options' for the current college-age kids. And that is govt-policy driven, by the pols who serve the Establishment/Elite/Aristocracy of this country. Hillary, Bush 41, Obama, Bill Clinton, and Bush 43 served the interests of the American Aristocracy quite well. The dismantling of the American Middle Class was not by accident, it was by design.
But I am talking about spending, not income. -- Its been my life’s observation that most Americans tend to spend up to their income, or overspend, regardless of their income (unless they make obscene amounts of money). There is a desire among the majority of our people, no doubt fostered by corporate-marketing types, to consume today, at the expense of putting away money for a rainy day – even if one must borrow to do so. Parents splurge on their kids, husbands splurge on their wives, most everyone insists on “keeping up with the Joneses”. Bigger houses, bigger cars, more & endless indulgences. “Enough” is never enough. The financial impact of decisions is ignored – especially if such an analysis might cause one to defer immediate gratification.
So of course (maybe), the ‘median’ household has little savings. That is what happens when you choose to spend, borrow to spend, and choose not to save -- and make those choices so frequently that having little/no savings becomes who you are.
David:
As for UBI, I recently heard an interesting saying that applies: “Politicians who chose to take from Peter in order to pay Paul, can ALWAYS count on the vote of Paul.”

FYI: Financial advisers should be aware that funds could be doling out large capital gains payouts this year, says Morningstar's Russel Kinnel.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160929/FREE/160929914?template=printart
M*: Russ Kinnel Capital Gains Video & Text:
http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=771131

FYI: (I will link intereview as soon as it becomes available for free, generally early Sat. morning)
Regards,
Ted
September 30, 2016
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
Few money managers have the conviction, wherewithal, stamina and independence to stick with positions that remain unpopular and unprofitable for years before paying off. This week’s guest is one of the few! We’ll be joined by Bruce Berkowitz, a deep value, long-term investor who rarely gives interviews. I have been interviewing him on WEALTHTRACK since 2007 and he has always generated a great deal of interest.
Berkowitz is Founder and Portfolio Manager of the three Fairholme funds - his Flagship Fairholme fund, launched in late 1999, the Fairholme Focused Income fund started in 2009, and the Fairholme Allocation fund begun in late 2010.
The Fairholme fund, for which he was given Morningstar’s Domestic Stock Fund Manager of the Decade Award in 2010 has delivered 10% annualized returns with dividends and distributions reinvested since inception, nearly triple the market’s total return.
However, the last decade has been much more difficult. The fund has badly lagged the market over the past 10, 5 and 3 year periods despite having several stellar years including 2012 and 2013 when it crushed the market and led its Morningstar Large Value category, gains that were offset by a big decline in 2011 and then another subpar performance in 2014, hurting its track record. The fund, which once had over $20 billion in assets, is now a fraction of that.
Berkowitz is famous for taking big positions in a handful of companies that are generally shunned and panned by Wall Street when he is accumulating them. He has made a fortune over the years in concentrated stakes in health care, energy and financial services. He has also poured a fortune in recent years into companies such as Florida real estate company The St. Joe Company and retailer Sears, as well as financial firms such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have yet to pay off.
There’s a well-known saying “Don’t fight city hall”… but Berkowitz is taking on the entire U.S. federal government. Fairholme is engaged in a multi-year lawsuit against the U.S. government over its handling of the conservatorship of the two mortgage giants, which although hugely profitable, are still under government control and paying enormous dividends to the government - but not to preferred shareholders like Fairholme. I began the interview by asking him why he is so committed to fighting this battle.
If you are unable to join us for the show on television, you can watch it on our website, WealthTrack.com, starting over the weekend. If you’d like to see it earlier, it is available to our PREMIUM subscribers right now. We also have an EXTRA interview with Berkowitz about his views on the presidential candidates. He says it is more about the team than the candidate.
Thank you for watching. Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and productive one.
Best Regards,
Consuelo