FYI: (Sorry to see him go, Tom is an outstanding financial writer !)
Regards,
Ted
http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-i-learned-in-14-years-on-the-funds-beat-1433537708

The New England (née Boston) Patriots already won the Superbowl, and the S&P 500 (total return) lost 3% in January.
I think you're confusing cause and effect. After those "predictors" spoke, a triple crown winner was all but a foregone conclusion. :-)

Hi Lewis Braham.
Thanks for the heads-up with regard to my referencing the supposedly Rothschild quotes. I recognize that quote attributions are often hotly debated, especially those dated by century timescales.
I am a little familiar that controversy exists with respect to the Rothschild family quotes. Fame and fortune attracts both enemies and allies.
That’s why I allowed myself some wiggle room when I wrote that: “He is usually credited with the sage investor advice to ….” and in a later paragraph “… some folks believe…”. The Rothschild family history is not without controversy.
Personally, I really don’t care who said it; they’re words of wisdom. I actually lifted them from website sources which I can’t easily reproduce, but I didn’t consider the politics of those checkpoints when so doing. I’ll remember your wise cautionary warning.
With the lapsing of time, these famous sayings get distorted, get a life of their own, and sometimes gain myth status. Although these sayings are wonderfully pity and poignant, they are peripheral to the investment process. I have seen financial columns that match one pity quote against an equally pithy quote taking the opposite investment position.
You might want to consider that subject for one of your upcoming articles.
Your reference seems like an authoritative place to do quote checking. Thank you.
Best Wishes.

Hi Sven,
I too have access to Bill Sharpe's Financial Engines website. I elected not to mention it because of its likely limited access for many MFOers.
I have a true anecdotal story involving Sharpe and me. In the early 1990s I was planning retirement and consulted with advisors asking for Monte Carlo analyses to support their opinions. They thought I was nuts.
So I was motivated to do my own programming. I ran into some stumbling blocks and sought help from the academic world. Professor Sharp rescued me with great advice on Monte Carlo issues and Gene Fama sent me tons of data. Both professors were extremely generous, and both were friendly. It never hurts to ask for help.
I don't understand the reluctance of some MFOers to even explore the potential benefits that Monte Carlo offers. Open mindedness when investing is an essential element to enhance the odds of success.
Many thanks for your contribution.
Best Wishes.

@MJG, I too have been working with Portfolio Visualizer for awhile. In addition, I have access to Financial Engine from work that open my eyes on back-testing.

FYI: The good news is that Americans are living longer and spending more years in retirement than ever before. However, funding retirement is a fast approaching crisis. On this week’s WEALTHTRACK we have an exclusive interview with Financial Thought Leader and legendary investment consultant, Charles Ellis, who tackles America’s greatest domestic financial challenge in a new book, Falling Short: The Coming Retirement Crisis and What To Do About It.
Regards,
Ted
http://wealthtrack.com/recent-programs/ellis-fixing-the-retirement-crisis/
M*: 2015 Fee Study: Investors Are Driving Expense Ratios Down: (This is a relink in case you missed it the first time.)
http://wealthtrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2015_fee_study.pdf

Hi Bee,
Thanks for the reference to Dr. Craig Israelsen’s paper on the performance of portfolio asset mix options.
Based on precisely past performance data, he made a case for his equally divided 7 category portfolio.
Since I used the word “precisely”, and from my earlier submittals, you can easily guess where I’m headed with this post.
Israelsen’s work has a major shortcoming when using it for planning purposes. The results are perfectly tied to the exact schedule of returns recorded by past markets. They allow for no wiggle room. To expect identical results in the future requires that the order of returns must be precisely replicated. The chances of that happening are virtually zero.
The sequence of returns in any investment is significant to end wealth and portfolio survival. I’m sorry but once again, this uncertainty of the sequencing of future returns points to the use of Monte Carlo simulations to examine various portfolio options.
Although I favor the Flexible Retirement Planner for many Monte Carlo investment issues, I used the Portfolio Visualizer (PV) code to run a few sample cases because of convenience. I can run the PV version on my I-pad.
I examined 3 portfolios assuming a 1M dollar initial value with a 5.5% annual drawdown that was adjusted for inflation. To replicate Israelsen’s work as closely as possible, I assumed a 25-year retirement period. My analyses used the historical category returns formatted in a manner for random selections.
As a baseline, I inputted a simple 4 category portfolio with the standard 50/10/30/10 mix of US Equities, Foreign Equities, US Bond, and Money Market holdings. As a second portfolio, I duplicated the Israelsen 7 category portfolio that is equally divided. As a third case, I invented an 8 category portfolio which was more heavily weighted to US equities including Small Cap Value, TIPS, and a replacement of the money market holding with a Short Term Corporate Bond position. All three portfolios were basically a 60/40 split between equities and fixed income products.
I let the Portfolio Visualizer loose on all three portfolios.
The baseline portfolio had a median end wealth of 2.66M dollars with a survival probability of 83%. I’m not a happy warrior at that survival probability.
The Israelsen portfolio had a median end wealth of 3.73M dollars with an improve survival rate of 90%. So far, Israelsen wins.
But that winning record didn’t last beyond a single alternative option. The portfolio that I assembled had a median end wealth of 4.45M dollars with a much more attractive likelihood of survival at the 96% level. Note that I make no claims that my portfolio is optimum, but it is an improvement over the Israelsen construction.
This is yet another illustration of the powerful impact that Monte Carlo calculations can make when stress testing a portfolio designed for a long-term retirement period. The inputs are completed in minutes, the results are displayed in seconds, and a limitless set of what-if scenarios can be explored in a half-hour.
I urge all MFOers to become familiar with Monte Carlo tools. Your own analyses are superior to those reported by many financial advisors.
Best Wishes.

"The challenge of asset allocation now is no longer having too few ingredients to consider but rather selecting among an ever increasing array of sector-specific mutual funds and exotic ETFs"
A Seven Asset Portfolio out performed all other asset allocations, both prior to and during retirement.
This would consist of:
-large-cap U.S. stock
-small-cap U.S. stock
-non-U.S. developed-market stock
-real estate
-commodities
-U.S. bonds
-cash
-in equal proportions, rebalanced annually.

and,
"The second part of this analysis compares three allocation models when used in a retirement portfolio — which is very sensitive to timing of returns, particularly large losses. This analysis assumed an initial nest egg balance of $250,000 — quite comfortable back in 1970, although fairly modest now — with an initial withdrawal rate of 5% (or $12,500 in year one) and an annual cost of living adjustment of 3%. Thus, the second-year withdrawal was 3% larger (or $12,875), and so on each year. The superior approach, however — with a median ending balance of over $2.1 million — is the model using seven different asset classes."


For retirees facing the future headwinds of rising rates this study found that:
-during the inflationary periods of the 1970s, the seven-asset model had considerably better performance as a retirement portfolio — finishing with a balance of $2,086,863 for the 1970 to 1994 period, while the 60/40 model ended up at $1,090,081. The pattern recurs in the first four 25-year periods.
-an asset allocation model that has a large commitment to U.S. bonds (such as the classic 60/40 portfolio) may be at risk because if interest rates rise, bond returns will likely be far lower than over the past three decades.
-that a more broadly diversified portfolio is prudent — both in the accumulation years and in the retirement years.
Source:
which-asset-allocation-mix-outperforms?

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/732041/000110465915043479/a15-13532_1497.htm
497 1 a15-13532_1497.htm 497
FPA Perennial Fund, Inc. (FPPFX)
Supplement dated June 4, 2015 to the
Prospectus dated April 30, 2015
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Prospectus for FPA Perennial Fund, Inc. (the “Fund”) dated April 30, 2015. You should retain this Supplement and the Prospectus for future reference. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at www.fpafunds.com or calling us at (800) 638-3060.
CHANGE IN NAME
Effective September 1, 2015, the Fund’s name will be changed to “FPA U.S. Value Fund, Inc.”.
CHANGE IN PORTFOLIO MANAGERS
Effective September 1, 2015, the paragraphs under the heading “Summary Section — Portfolio Managers” on page 7 of the Prospectus are deleted and replaced in their entirety with the following:
“Portfolio Manager. Gregory Nathan, Managing Director of the Adviser, has served as a portfolio manager since September 1, 2015.”
Effective September 1, 2015, the paragraphs under the heading “Management and Organization — Portfolio Managers” on page 13 of the Prospectus are deleted and replaced in their entirety with the following:
“Portfolio Manager
Gregory Nathan is primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund’s portfolio.
Mr. Gregory Nathan has been an analyst for FPA’s Contrarian Value strategy, including FPA Crescent Fund, since January 2007. Prior to joining FPA in 2007, Mr. Nathan was a managing member of Coldwater Asset Management LLC.
The SAI provides additional information about the Portfolio Manager’s compensation, other accounts managed by the Portfolio Manager and the Portfolio Manager’s ownership of shares of the Fund.”
Effective September 1, 2015, Eric Ende and Gregory Herr will no longer be Portfolio Managers of the Fund.
DISCONTINUANCE OF SALES TO NEW INVESTORS
Effective on or about June 15, 2015, the Fund has discontinued indefinitely the sale of its shares to new investors, except existing shareholders, directors, officers and employees of the Fund, the Adviser and affiliated companies, and their immediate relatives.
In addition, the Fund will allow new investors to purchase shares if they fall into one of the following categories:
1. Clients of an institutional consultant, a financial advisor, a financial planner, or an affiliate of a financial advisor or financial planner, who has client assets invested with the Fund at the time of your application;
2. Investors purchasing Fund shares through a sponsored fee-based program and shares of the Fund are made available to that program pursuant to an agreement with FPA Funds or UMB Distribution Services, LLC, and FPA Funds or UMB Distribution Services, LLC has notified the sponsor of that program, in writing, that shares may be offered through such program and has not withdrawn that notification;
3. Investors transferring or “rolling over” into a Fund IRA account from an employee benefit plan through which you held shares of the Fund (if your plan doesn’t qualify for rollovers you may still open a new account with all or part of the proceeds of a distribution from the plan);
4. You are an employee benefit plan or other type of corporate or charitable account sponsored by or affiliated with an organization that also sponsors or is affiliated with (or is related to an organization that sponsors or is affiliated with) another employee benefit plan or corporate or charitable account that is a shareholder of the Fund, and;
5. You are a participant of an employee benefit plan that is already a Fund shareholder.
The Fund may ask you to verify that you meet one of the categories above prior to permitting you to open a new account in the Fund. The Fund may permit you to open a new account if the Fund reasonably believes that you are eligible. The Fund also may decline to permit you to open a new account if the Fund believes that doing so would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders, even if you would be eligible to open a new account under these guidelines.
The Fund’s ability to impose the guidelines above with respect to accounts held by financial intermediaries may vary depending on the systems capabilities of those intermediaries, applicable contractual and legal restrictions and cooperation of those intermediaries.
The Fund continues to reinvest dividends and capital gain distributions with respect to the accounts of existing shareholders who elect such options.
FPA Perennial Fund, Inc. (as of September 1, 2015, FPA U.S. Value Fund, Inc.) expects to re-open to new investors during October 2015.

"Stock prices have risen rapidly over the past six years or so, but they were also severely depressed during and just after the financial crisis. Arguably, the Fed's actions have not led to permanent increases in stock prices, but instead have returned them to trend. To illustrate: From the end of the 2001 recession (2001:q4) through the pre-crisis business cycle peak (2007:q4), the S&P 500 stock price index grew by about 1.2 percent a quarter. If the index had grown at that same rate from the fourth quarter of 2007 on, it would have averaged about 2123 in the first quarter of this year; its actual value was 2063, a little below that. There are of course many ways to calculate the "normal" level of stock prices, but most would lead to a similar conclusion." - Ben Bernanke

David, thank you for your additional comments. I know I don’t know either. I know a lot less than you, which is why I value your monthly commentary. And I often don’t know what I don’t know (2008 proved that a lot of us didn’t have a clue).
A few positive thoughts:
If there is a meltdown in the bond market, your liquidity problem would probably disappear quickly. Low prices bring out buyers. If bonds declined to the point where their payouts equaled say 10%, a lot of that cash sitting in short term treasuries would shift to the long end. There is a lot of wealth in this country that can solve liquidity problems. We saw that during the real estate crash. Pundits thought that the real estate market wouldn’t recover for decades because of all of the unsold inventory, foreclosures, tight credit, etc. But a funny thing happened: thousands of investors started buying those homes with all cash deals. Anyone who tried to buy a foreclosed home on the cheap was confronted with aggressive overbids.
Another worry that we hear often on cable channels is that stocks are going up only because of stock buybacks--financial engineering that is supposedly unhealthy. But the other side of that equation, as you know, is that the corporations that buy their own shares have less shares outstanding, and so we shareholders own a larger percentage of the business. [If they paid out the money in dividends, many shareholders would simply reinvest the dividends, so the result is basically the same.] And many of these companies still have a ton of cash.
Yeah, I’m worried. But then all that worrying seems to feed the next rally.
I have enough cash to pay my expenses for probably ten years. So if I have to suffer through another crash, I’ve got the resources to pay my bills and increase my fund holdings. And I feel fairly comfortable that my conservative funds, many great owl funds, will do a fairly good job of minimizing the fall [though I still remember how a few of my former funds, like Longleaf Partners, failed miserably the last time we went over the edge, and I felt like I wanted to vomit.]

Hmmm ... I blew a job interview once with a particularly weak answer to the request to "describe a hard decision you've made and how you went about making it." I'd spent much of my professional life making really consequential decisions about people's careers, the direction of my college and so on. After a while, it struck me that I was tripped up by the word "hard." In my mind, "hard" decisions are consequential decisions you're forced to make without having enough understanding to make them well. Because I tend to obsess about advance planning, very few of my decisions felt hard though many of them were profoundly painful.
That's where I am now on the market. I'm not particularly concerned with corrections or bears because, though I can't predict them, I understand them and can plan around them: Adjust your savings and withdrawal rates, shift asset allocations at least at the margin, ignore your portfolio whenever you feel the urge to do something brilliant, and be very comfortable with your managers. Meh, no biggie.
The thing that has me worried is the argument that I've heard now from several managers that the system itself might be broken. That's manifested in the liquidity arguments that I've been writing about. "Highly liquid" assets are, by definition, easily valued and easily traded; Treasuries are the paradigm case. We buy investments with the assumption that we can also sell them. Those sales happen through the good offices of intermediaries, sometimes called "market makers." Those folks maintain pools of tens, perhaps hundreds, of billions of capital. They buy your shares, using their money, at a fraction of a penny per share below the last price. Sometime later, maybe minutes, maybe hours, they sell it someone else for a fraction of a penny markup.
So, three parties to the trade: seller, market maker, buyer. We traditionally worry that high valuations will eventually make buyers scarce. That is, no "greater fool" is available and you have to sell your holdings at a discount. Buyer/seller mismatch. "Correction" occurs.
But what happens if the problem isn't between buyer and seller but between seller and market maker? That is, what if the conveyor belt that normally, quietly, profitably, invisibly moves shares between sellers and buyers isn't working? I'd like to sell $100 million in a bond and you'd like to buy them for $95 million but there's nobody capable of coming up with the initial capital to move them from me to you? At base, my bond would become unsellable, illiquid. That's the liquidity crunch.
Why might that occur? There have been a bunch of shifts in the financial services industry, some occasioned by good-spirited reforms imposed after the last two crises (two of the three worst market crises in a century occurred within eight years of one another, wonder if that's significant?), which have fundamentally impaired the number and size of intermediaries.
David Sherman and others have pointed out that that's already happening in some corners of the market: people are finding it almost impossible to sell very large blocks of bonds, people are finding it hard to sell stocks at mid-day and so on. And that's occurring in the good times. What happens if large, highly-leverage investors get spooked and try to unwind, say, a half trillion at the same time and find that they simply can't? Do you get an October '87 repricing (down 23% in an afternoon)? Do you get a fundamental change in the willingness of international capital to underwrite us because we're no longer "safe"? Do you get an October '08 freeze (where even the shortest term, most liquid paper couldn't be traded and volumes dropped 75%)? Do you get employers who can't honor their payroll obligations because they can't tap the paper markets? How might you react if your employer that they were hoping to be able to pay you sometime in the next week or so, at least part of your normal pay, but they weren't able to give a time or amount?
And is the fact that the smartest of the smart money people - that top 1% of institutional and private investors - are worrying about their own ability to "get out the door" independently significant? When guys who manage money for the really rich tell me that they're "standing outside the theater, shouting 'fire,' but nobody's listening," should I write them off as simply alarmist?
Here's what I got for answers: dunno, dunno, dunno, dunno, dunno, dunno, dunno and dunno.
Which I really dislike.
So, yeah, I think the markets are pricey but that's not really the thing that's nibbling the most at my brain.
For what that's worth,
David

FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
US fund managers have launched a new attack on global regulators as they fight a rearguard action against possible rules that would treat groups such as Fidelity and BlackRock as threats to the financial system
Regards,
Ted
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6fbde67a-061b-11e5-89c1-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=traffic/partner/feed_headline/us_yahoo/auddev,traffic/partner/feed_headline/us_yahoo/auddev#axzz3bo0KNYFu

Hi Old Joe,
In this instance, your Internet search engine did not serve you well. Perhaps you chose the wrong search words.
Instead of directing you towards a Link with real world information and possibilities, it guided you to a bizarre fictional cardboard character. That’s too bad because a town on Argentina’s Beagle Channel does incorporate an end of phrasing as part of its town motto.
That town is Ushuaia, the southern most town in the world. I had the advantage of not needing to research the matter since my wife and I visited the place a few years ago. Here is a Link to a site with general photos of Ushuaia and its dock area:
http://cruises.about.com/od/southamericacruises/ig/Ushuaia-Argentina/
Here is a Link to a site that features a photo of its harbor welcome sign that defiantly proclaims its motto:
http://www.followjohnpaul.com/ushuaia-end-world/
As you can see from the photo, the complete Ushuaia town motto is “Ushuaia End of the World Beginning of Everything”.
That’s great optimism for a town that survives and prospers under such harsh environmental conditions.
On our visit, the townspeople were terrific, maybe the police not so much so. The police were suspicious of what to us were tourist-like activities. That’s somewhat understandable since Ushuaia is the home of Argentina’s maximum security prison. When we questioned the locals, we were told that the police were often corrupt; they believed the military were more trustworthy.
The discussions on this thread have been mostly helpful and designed to transmit information diversity. That’s great. I didn’t want the exchange to end with the lowbrow, but popular, Homer Simpson TV character featured. I doubt if anyone believes that “the end is near”. If we do, we’re wasting time on any financial matters.
Best Wishes.

Hi Hank, Hi Guys,
Please do not interpret my posting of Jim Stack’s Las Vegas presentations as my ringing endorsement of his advice. It is not. I like his historical research and his reliance on multiple market directional indicators. I don’t necessarily agree with his conclusions. I don’t subscribe to his services,
I posted Stack’s recommendations on MFO for informational purposes. Stack is one of my favorite financial money managers because of his dependence on statistical research, but also because he is a recovering Aerospace engineer. In that regard, we share a common background that demands a heavy commitment to safety factors. That commitment is reflected in his conservative, defensive investment philosophy and strategies.
Stack has enjoyed success as a money manager, but he is a relatively small player in that field with a very limited audience. The chances that his clients would all follow his incremental equity reduction advice is small; the likelihood that a wider audience would act on that advice is remote with the probabilities approaching zero. The fear of a market meltdown as a self-fulfilling Jim Stack prophecy is just not in the cards.
Stack’s track record is a mixed bag. Since he adheres to a defensive policy, he tends to partially reduce equities early. I agree with many MFOers that Gurus are not especially prescient. Remember the CXO Advisory Group’s Guru Rating database. The overall success score was just below 50% with the highest value at the 68% level. That data reinforces my long standing observation that forecasters can’t consistently forecast.
Stack was not evaluated by CXO Advisory. Based on my general assessment of Stack’s methods, I speculate that he would have been slightly above middle of the road in that rating.
I agree that market timing is hazardous duty, especially in the short-term because of emotional investor noise, and amplified when synchronized into a herd reaction. An old cautionary saying about joining the crowd warns that “running with the herd might get you trampled”. That’s wise words,
But I do like to collect and compare Guru predictions. When properly assembled and used (I mentioned the success of a Kalman Filtering approach in earlier submittals), the herd opinions can improve the odds of success.
As an aside, it seems like many investment organizations are now using fund team managers instead of individual superstar managers. DFA and Dodge and Cox serve as excellent mutual fund examples.
Regrettably, nothing is ever perfectly simple in the investment process. Conflicting evidence must always be carefully collected and weighed. That’s one reason why information source diversity is so important. Independent analyses and interpretations are critical. I often wonder just how independent these analyses really are. There appears to be an incestuous relationship among many popular market writers and pundits.
When reading this post, please recognize that I do like Stack and rate him highly along with several other money matter advisors. But these other advisors often offer disparate market opinions. All “experts” are not equal; the value I extract from them is weighted.
The first step before making an investment decision is to gather information from several primary sources. A second step is to sort and evaluate these data without falling victim to data overload.
Avoiding “analysis paralysis” is an issue. I’m sure all MFOers approach this step differently. The decision making process is itself an art. I use a very, very informal form of the Kalman Filtering approach whereby I weight the various inputs with an estimate of their accuracy record. Ben Franklin used a check list and sequentially eliminated elements from each side. Whatever works for you is the best approach.
Thank you all for participating in this thread. I did not anticipate the interest when I reported the scribbling that I made at the MoneyShow conference.
Best Wishes.
Edit: Hank, I too am 81 years old and am still in the market. However my commitment and enthusiasm are both easily overshadowed by the fine folks participating in the MFO exchanges.

FYI: ( I will link repeat program, early tomorrow morning, when it becomes available for free.)
Regards,
Ted
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
With stocks and bonds more expensive than they have been in 90% of market history even institutional investors are feeling conflicted about where to invest. According to a recent survey of global Chief Investment Officers, they are reluctantly increasing their allocation to stocks in order to get higher returns, even though they are worried about a major market correction. This week, with the permission of State Street Global Advisors, the sponsor of the survey we are sharing the “Walking The Tightrope” survey report with you. It will be available on our website, over the weekend.
It is the beginning of a fund raising season on public television, so this week we are revisiting an interview with Paul McCulley, a Financial Thought Leader, noted
Fed watcher, economist and former short term bond trader.
The reason we chose to highlight McCulley’s interview again is because he makes a strong case for one side of a very important economic debate, the outcome of which will have a huge impact on the markets. McCulley is a proponent of the “secular stagnation” theory being argued by former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. If they are right, that we are in a period of prolonged economic stagnation, then interest rates should remain near historic lows for several more years and both the stock and bond markets should benefit as a result. If they are wrong, both markets are grossly overvalued and due for a severe correction.
You might recall that for years McCulley was a Senior Partner at bond giant PIMCO. He was a founding member of its Investment Policy Committee, along with firm founder Bill Gross, and author of the influential monthly “Global Central Bank Focus”. During his time at PIMCO, he managed their huge short term trading desk, overseeing an estimated $400 billion dollars in assets.
McCulley retired from PIMCO in 2010 to write, think, speak and otherwise lead a more balanced life, which he did until last year when he was asked to return to his old firm, by his former boss and close friend, Bill Gross. Gross then unexpectedly left the firm a few months later, an experience McCulley will talk about in our exclusive EXTRA feature on our website.
McCulley is known for his understanding of economics, the capital markets and Fed policy. Long before the 2008/2009 financial crisis he identified the powerful and destructive rise of what he called the “Shadow Banking System”, the unregulated institutions fueling the housing and credit bubble. He also coined the phrase “Minsky Moment”, after economist Hyman Minsky’s theory that financial stability, as this country had during the Alan Greenspan era, ultimately leads to financial instability, as people and institutions take on more and more risk.
That is exactly what happened.
In this interview he makes some other startling predictions about Fed policy under Janet Yellen, Mario Draghi’s intentions and the global level of interest rates.
If WEALTHTRACK isn’t showing on your local station due to pledge, you can always watch it on our website, WealthTrack.com over the weekend. As I mentioned you will also find our exclusive online EXTRA interview McCulley about his decision to retire – twice – and how he’s achieved a work/life balance.
Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and productive one.
Best Regards,
Consuelo

"I suppose if you assume that the stock market is efficient and investors are rational"
Well, if I'm supposed to assume that, I might as well go whole hog and believe that capitalism is capable of efficient self-regulation, and that the financial market is already over-regulated, as has been proposed elsewhere on MFO.
(But that's an entirely different barroom brawl, as I'll bet you're aware.) :)

Advice for Graduates: Buy Stocks
Posted on May 27, 2015 by David Ott Acropolis is a fee-only wealth management firm,
When I graduated from college 20 years ago, the world was a different place: only a few people had cell phones,the Internet wasn’t useful for anything, and nobody used email or instant messaging.
I should note that I didn’t have to walk to school uphill both ways – that was before my time.
A lot has happened since I graduated and started participating in financial markets:
The good news, though, is that stocks represent ownership interests in operating businesses and as long as the system is based on capitalism and we have the rule of law, stocks should earn more than bonds or cash.
But, who’s to say what the next 20 years will look like? Right now, non-US stocks look a lot cheaper than our markets, so it’s not hard to think that their returns will at least match ours or potentially be higher. That said, while US stocks will likely have lower returns over the next 10 years, no one can say much about the 10 years beyond that.
So, young grasshoppers, buy stocks and do it in a diversified, global way.
http://acrinv.com/advice-for-graduates-buy-stocks/

@scott Agree. Not one of his better efforts, rather pedestrian. But at least there are some data there, which suggest in a general broad-stroke way that there is probably far less to worry about re. rising interest rates than the financial media machine would lead us to believe. i.e. we are not on the cusp of a Bondapocalypse.

FYI: Despite the fact that traditional financial theory has long held that dividend policy should be irrelevant to stock returns, one of the biggest trends to occur in recent years has been a rush to invest in dividend-paying stocks. The heightened interest in these assets has been fueled both by media hype and the current regime of interest rates, which are well below historical averages.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/index-investor-corner/swedroe-no-refuge-dividend-stocks