It is kind of twisted logic:

Here's Anthony Scaramucci, the Skybridge Capital founder and Trump fund-raiser and adviser, on the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule:
“It's about like the Dred Scott decision,” Mr. Scaramucci said.
He made the analogy because he views the DOL rule as discriminatory, Mr. Scaramucci wrote in a follow-up email.
“The left-leaning Department of Labor has made a decision to discriminate against a class of people who they deem to be adding no value,” he wrote. “They are judging what should happen in a free market and attempting to put financial advisers out of work."

http://tinyurl.com/hchqvz2

"Trump adviser ... Scaramucci has compared the fiduciary rule [for IRAs, 401Ks] to the infamous Dred Scott decision, a 1857 Supreme Court ruling that denied black Americans citizenship."
Would that be because the SEC rule would hold financial advisors slaves to the truth? I'm really having trouble parsing this comment.

@DH: What's the point? The spike in rates is probably the most forecast (overly-forecast) financial event of the past decade, if not longer.
It's been badgered to death here and elsewhere. Written about. Argued over dozens of times. Hell, I remember similar warnings and discussions back in the days of Fund Alarm. And ya know what? Rates kept falling.
So to say someone should have seen last week's sudden turn coming is a bit disingenuous.

FYI: Next week I will have the distinct pleasure of joining a distinguished cadre of financial advisors, institutional investors, asset managers, journalists and fellow bloggers in New York City for the inaugural Evidence Based Investing Conference. It’s rare to come across a conference where you are just as excited about the attendee list as you are the speakers, but the folks organizing this event have done just that. For the uninitiated, the conference website provides a (working) definition of the phrase:
Regards,
Ted
http://bpsandpieces.com/2016/11/08/a-tale-of-two-investors/

@Derf, unfortunately I don't follow it in enough detail to draw great conclusions either but I do have a couple of general takeaways. Some of the biggest contributors in Q3 were her picks but the fund has also been hurt by her choices in Africa. He's put a lot more in financial services than she ever did and IMHO it's too early to know whether that's the right move or not but her interest in non-financial names was part of the reason I liked the fund in the first place.
My comment about missing the post Brexit boat was just based on the performance since he took over (roughly) but your point is well taken that she shares responsibility for that and at this point it would be somewhere between hard and impossible to determine whether it's mostly because of Geritz or Edgley.

Hi Guys,
We should all be thankful of what John Bogle has meant to the mutual fund industry. His contributions go beyond smart. They are wise. Yet he remains a humble man with a set of investment rules that are general and simple. Here is a list of his 10 rules as presented in the referenced article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-bogles-10-rules-of-investing/
Good stuff! I'm sure you guys are all familiar with these rules and likely deploy many of them while managing your portfolios. It's a great confidence booster when a financial wizard of Bogle's status adds his approval to rules that you probably apply.
These common sense rules carry weight for both active and passive investors. Not unexpectedly, cost control and patience are crucial elements in the rule set.
Best Wishes.

I had thought there would be an article with this? Just a table of funds.
Rumors are going both ways as to whether the Fed will change policy or not. I see that Anthony Scaramucci is on Pres. Trumps financial committee. Hmmmm

FYI: When Jim Rogers talks, investors listen. One of the world's most famous investors, Rogers is known for his no-nonsense style and investment wisdom. He is the author of several best-selling books, including his latest, "Street Smarts: Adventures on the Road and in the Markets." ETF.com recently spoke with Rogers for his take on the latest financial market developments.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/jim-rogers-serious-economic-crisis-coming-heres-what-im-doing

Here is the response I received from T. Rowe Price after inquiring where the quarterly fund commentary sections went on their website:
"I regret to inform you that that the commentary that was once found when clicking on the formerly labeled "Management/Commentary" tab has been removed for each fund. After careful consideration and research, we found that the tab did not receive enough visits to warrant keeping the commentary when combined with the knowledge that the commentary was never timely or 100% up-to-date despite our best efforts. We are working on developing a more robust experience for our shareholders to utilize in the future.
In the interim, we believe our T. Rowe Price Insights page will provide you with some of the information you may be looking for when it comes to investments, the markets & economy, and retirement & financial planning. These various pages are updated regularly with commentary and articles from specific investment professionals."
Very disappointing - I like to read a fund manager's commentary on how the fund performed, positioning, outlook, etc. each quarter.

FYI: Bank of America Merrill Lynch told its financial advisers Tuesday to halt the sale of mutual funds in brokerage-based individual retirement accounts, months before the Labor Department's new fiduciary regulation takes effect.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161101/FREE/161109984?template=printart

FYI: TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. is the latest custodian to launch a low-cost direct-to-consumer robo-advice platform to attract clients who don't want to pay more for human help with financial planning and investing.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161101/FREE/161109994?template=printart

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/889188/000119312516752839/d262690d497.htm
497 1 d262690d497.htm FORM 497
FORWARD FUNDS
Supplement dated October 31, 2016
to the Salient EM Corporate Debt Fund Investor Class and Institutional Class Prospectus, Salient EM Corporate Debt Fund Class C and Advisor Class Prospectus and Salient EM Corporate Debt Fund Statement of Additional Information each dated May 1, 2016, as supplemented
NOTICE OF LIQUIDATION OF SALIENT EM CORPORATE DEBT FUND
On October 18, 2016, the Board of Trustees of Forward Funds (the “Trust”), including all of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trust (as that term is defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended), approved the liquidation of the Salient EM Corporate Debt Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust. The Fund will be liquidated pursuant to a Board-approved Plan of Liquidation on or around February 28, 2017 (the “Liquidation Date”). On the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute pro rata to its respective shareholders of record as of the close of business on the business day preceding the Liquidation Date all of the assets of the Fund in complete cancellation and redemption of all of the outstanding shares of beneficial interest, except for cash, bank deposits or cash equivalents in an estimated amount necessary to (i) discharge any unpaid liabilities and obligations of the Fund on the Fund’s books on the Liquidation Date, including, but not limited to, income dividends and capital gains distributions, if any, payable through the Liquidation Date, and (ii) pay such contingent liabilities as the officers of the Trust deem appropriate.
As the Liquidation Date approaches, the Fund will likely increase its holdings in cash and cash equivalents in anticipation of redemption requests and liquidation. As a result, the Fund may invest without limit in money market securities, U.S. Government obligations, and short-term debt securities. This could have a negative effect on the Fund’s ability to achieve its investment objective.
Certain investors may expect to receive an additional communication from their financial advisor or intermediary concerning this announcement.
IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLANNED LIQUIDATION, EFFECTIVE NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 10, 2017, SHARES OF THE SALIENT EM CORPORATE DEBT FUND WILL CEASE TO BE OFFERED FOR PURCHASE TO NEW INVESTORS OR EXISTING INVESTORS (EXCEPT THROUGH REINVESTED DIVIDENDS) OR BE AVAILABLE FOR EXCHANGES FROM OTHER FUNDS OF THE TRUST.
PLEASE KEEP THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
****

Edmond,
Thanks very much. Sweet analysis. Especially #3 and your conclusion/personal status. This question was not for me per se but for my 76yo widowed mother. A financial adviser was suggesting going up on equities. He is sniffing around for business and I like to be logical. I could never have been as cogent in defending staying the course. Thanks again, Mike

FYI: Here’s another chart to scare you this Halloween: Foreign investors, who now represent 39 percent of funds dedicated to the U.S. high-yield fixed-income market, have become ever-more sensitive to the asset class’s performance since the financial crisis.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-28/bond-tourists-expose-soft-underbelly-of-america-s-high-yield-market

FYI: Seven top asset managers this week reported a total of $50 billion in third-quarter net redemptions, most of it from active funds, company filings show. The biggest losers: Franklin Resources Inc. with $22.1 billion, AllianceBernstein with $15.3 billion and Waddell & Reed Financial Inc. at $4.9 billion.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-28/asset-managers-bleed-50-billion-as-industry-crisis-deepens

John, I got into the Schwab-robo in April, 2015. duranal sounds like he or she did a nice comparison to help him choose. Me, I already had my IRA at Schwab so I wasn't going to open another account when it was so easy to click some buttons in my existing account to make it happen. Couple comments off the top of my head:
- the Schwab questionnaire that is meant to look at your age and risk tolerance in order to place you at the "appropriate" equity weighting was annoying. I wanted this to be a 60% equity weighted portfolio, but after answering the questions it had me less than 50%. The local Schwab financial adviser I work with didn't like the system either, so we decided to just fudge the answers until we got the mix I wanted. I opened my account the 1st week the Intelligent portfolio was introduced, so maybe they changed that aspect.
- I don't really mind the cash element. A lot of articles I read at the start didn't like the idea, but I saw it as a buffer that could play out better than bonds over the next few years. My cash portion is 10%.
- the portfolio is weighted heavier than I would have expected international and EM. That did not fair well mid-way through 2015 and I questioned the move when returns faltered. Since then returns have been good to very good in my opinion. My portfolio is up 9.84% YTD and about 5.7% over 1 year.
- I also liked the idea of investing in a diversified portfolio where someone else is watching diversification, balancing and reinvesting the dividends. With it, there is never the erg to buy the new hot fund or move things around at just the wrong time (which I was pretty good at).
- I didn't turn my entire IRA into the robo. I did 1/2. I still like the challenge of building my own portfolio and watching the results. If anything, the robo process has taught me build it, watch it but don't tinker. I believe everything I've read now about investors shooting themselves in the foot trying to out think the system is true. Most of us lose money doing this.
Good luck with your decision.

FYI: Jeffrey Gundlach, chief executive of DoubleLine Capital, believes investors and financial advisers should not get too comfortable with the recent pattern of Federal Reserve monetary policy.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161025/FREE/161029934?template=printart

In response to BobC's above question.
Below is my best guess, thoughts and comments.
Not speaking for American Funds but from the perspective of one of their mutual fund investors I am thinking it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to move to only a one share class fund firm due to, the no doubt, many revenue sharing agreements they have in place with the many other financial firms they have developed relationships with through the years. Thus the large number of fund share classes necessary to serve this large and broad base of investors that they now serve through many venues.
I am an A fund share holder that paid a one time front load commission (through the years) and, with this, I received nva exchange prividledges among their A share funds without having to pay another sales charge. These sales charges, from my memory, ranged form 3.5% to 5.75% depending on the fund I was buying without applying other discounts. I'm thinking the brokerage wrap accounts that many firms have moved to that have on going fees associated with these type accounts and that I have the better deal. I have seen annual wrap fee schedules of better than 1.5% for some wrap accounts with most being around the 1.0% range and a few back of that.
I have owned some American Funds for better than thiry years with some funds that I now own were owned for years by my parents before being passed to me through gift and inheritance transfers. When you consider the number of years these funds have been owned the sales load spread over the years owned is very small. Now an on going annual account wrap and/or advisor retainer fee paid over these same years would be very, very large.
I'm thinking long term investors need to determine which route will be the best for them while I can undestand some short term investors might find more favor in the wrap fee account who wish to move in and out of their positions and trade a lot. There are some restrictions on how many nav transfers I can make over a given time span. These restrictions are designed to prevent a lot of in and out trading but do allow for repositioning my portfolio from time-to-time.
Also, know American Funds is not the only family of funds that I am invested with as they are mostly a large cap value shop. Some of the other fund families are Alger, Alps, Blackrock, Columbia, Delaware, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, First Investors, Franklin, Guggenheim, Invesco, Hotchkis & Wiley, J P Morgan, Loomis Sayles, Lord Abbett, Neuberger & Berman, Principal, Prudential, Sun America, Thornburg, Virtus and perhaps a few others that I missed. All of these fund families allow for nav exchanges within their family of funds so my cost to move around within their family of funds and reposition my portfolio from time-to-time is at no cost to me.
From my thinking there are no ongoing annual wrap account fees and/or advisor sales commissions, for me, as my sales charges have already been paid except for the small 12b-1 fee that applies on some of the funds I own.
Yep, I'm thining I've got the better deal over wrap fee based accounts and fee based advisors who charge annual retainer fees.
Old_Skeet

From the looks of it, Jaffe was just reading a line off the Natixis PR, which is a summary of what Hank observed was not a rigorous study.
Hank also caught onto the fact that both the survey Jaffe was referencing and the earlier survey that MJG linked to had polled advisors, not investors. However, upon reading the PR, one discovers that the investor expectations figure reported (8.5% above inflation) did not even come from that recent advisor survey data but from an older data set. So Jaffe was sloppy in his reading or his reporting in saying that a recent study reported this. (The info was in the PR for the survey, but not from the survey itself.)
Here are the PR pages for the current reports :
Natixis 2016 Individual Investor Survey (data collected Feb/Mar 2016, report May 24, 2016. full paper here)
Natixis 2016 Financial Advisor Survey (US data collected July 2016; PR dated September 28, 2016.)

Hi. Hank,
I certainly do agree with much of what has been posted on this exchange, especially your last posting. On this topic, with the same prime time players (Jaffe, Natixis), this is the second time around the horn for you. I'll provide a Link a little later.
Just like no financial advisor is created equal, no financial writers are created equal either. And separate columns composed by each writer are not equal. Brilliance is hard to maintain on any timescale.
This Jaffe column might not belong on the brilliant side of the scoring, but it is not a dud either. Jaffe has been using the Natixis work for a long time. For example, you commented on a similar column about two years ago. Here is the internal Link to the column and your comments:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/13442/chuck-jaffe-proof-most-investors-are-clueless-david-giunta-pres-natixis-global-asset-management
It is not surprising that Natixis uses a hired firm to conduct their surveys. That's a common practice. We do the same when we hire mutual fund managers to fill our portfolios with companies of their choosing. Nothing unusual about interpreting results generated by an outfit that you hired. Natixis uses Core Data to do their survey legwork. Here is a Link that describes the Core Data organization and some of their talent:
http://www.coredataresearch.com/about/our-approach/
Core Data seems to have the capabilities to do worldwide surveys. It doesn't disturb me one whit that Natixis does its own interpretation of the data collected.
I certainly agree with you that the summary conclusions you listed are mundane if they were the only conclusions or stats presented. But they were not. Just about each page of the white paper provided some detailed statistics associated with both advisors and their clients.
I also agree that the referenced white paper was designed for financial advisors, and not for private investors. That does not diminish the value of the surveys. These surveys still identify shortfalls in both advisor and individual investor thinking and planning.
This takes us back to the Jaffe article that prompted this hot exchange: investors "are Probably Way Too Optimistic About Your Investment Returns". Most of the postings don't argue this assertion. In any final analyses, that's what it is all about. A casual charge that Jaffe and Natixis are BSers is far too extreme. Certainly any analysis or article has shortfalls. Exceptions simply do not exist.
Sorry for the delay in my response. My wife and I are celebrating her 77th birthday. It's been a grand day.
Best Wishes.