Um, Ted has no "human" frailties. What is the title of this thread again? Can a robot tell a robot from a human better than a human can tell a robot from a human? Oh my! Maybe a robot programmer can tell a program result from a recipe result. But, but, but.... Oh I'm so confused. Which of the scenarios had a glimmer of creativity? Therein lies the dilemma. Who gets the higher fee - a robot or a financial advisor?
But seriously - do financial advisors employ artificial intelligence?

On the inaugural show of the new Wall Street Week, Mr. Gundlach mentioned that a crisis in junk bonds was coming. I guess he knows the day and the hour when it will begin.
http://m.wyff4.com/money/junk-bonds-the-next-financial-crisis/32465346

Gundlach was referring to a crisis in corporate junk bonds not munis. This year the junk corporates are outperforming the junk munis, the reverse of last year. The link below indicates there could be big problems ahead for Puerto Rico munis
http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2015/04/23/puerto-ricos-government-could-shut-down/?mod=BOL_hp_blog_ii

Hi Guys,
Thank you all for your enthusiastic replies. I appreciate all of them for their prospective and for their civility.
I believe we all invest with constraints; with some self-imposed set of rules that act as speed governors to control potentially disastrous behavioral biases.
As Dirty Harry remarked in that film series: “A Good Man Always Has to Know His Limitations”. Here is a Link to that terrific scene:

I think good investors do either formally or informally generate a set of operational rules. These rules guide them in making investment decisions.
The rules need not be inflexible and forever cast in stone. Strong adherence to the rules is mostly necessary since frequent violations defeat their purpose. But market circumstances and personal circumstances change, and the final rule should be that change is permissible under evolving conditions. There is much art and just a little science that should dictate when these changes are warranted.
The constraints suggested in the referenced article are not a bad point of departure. Personally, I follow many of them, but definitely not all. Each of you guys likely follow a different subset that more closely defines your own investment philosophy, style, time horizon, financial know-how, and special proclivities.
All of us see investing from differing perspectives. What’s significant to you might be trivial to me. Professional firms follow their own shining guidelines. As a grand illustration, allow me to reference a seminal position paper by Oaktree’s Howard Marks. The paper is titled “The Most Important Thing”. Here is the Link:
http://www.oaktreecapital.com/MemoTree/Most Important Thing (070103).pdf
I hope you find his summary as informative as I did. I love adding some extra value to these exchanges. Enjoy the Marks philosophy.
Marks simply could not consolidate his “most important thing” to a single item. He lists quite a few. When investing there is almost never a single best approach, and any best approach will surely morph over time. Like Marks said: “There are a lot of moving parts in this machine, and many of them are beyond our control.” So both control elements and open-mindedness are essential ingredients for success.
Best Regards.
ADDED COMMENT: The Howard Marks Link is not working on this site. Try this address:
http://www.oaktreecapital.com/memo.aspx
And then click on the 2003 memos for access to the referenced article. Sorry about the problem.

On the inaugural show of the new Wall Street Week, Mr. Gundlach mentioned that a crisis in junk bonds was coming. I guess he knows the day and the hour when it will begin.
http://m.wyff4.com/money/junk-bonds-the-next-financial-crisis/32465346

FYI: When was the last time you asked a human for driving directions? One day, the same could be true for financial directions.
Though many already turn to so-called robo advisers for advice about where to put their money to reach their desired financial destinations, MarketWatch wanted to see if these directions are any good. So we asked four prominent robo advisers and four of the traditional, flesh-and-blood variety to construct portfolios for a hypothetical 35-year-old investor with $40,000 to invest.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/can-you-tell-a-human-financial-adviser-from-a-robot-2015-04-21/print

To be fair, I would lump all tax advantage accounts together (and maybe even from spouses) to give you real numbers. I have for instance, had four 401k's but after leaving the companies I worked for, rolled them into IRA's (multiple accounts as a matter of fact). If an employee has several different accounts the odds go down substantially that they would have equity north of $1m in any one account. That seems to coincide with their figure of 34 years with average tenure for those that the average >$1m accounts.
I do agree though, the population of millionaire-retirement account investors, is probably very small overall. But I'm sure it's far greater than 0.6% of workers. I guess it depends on your definition of millionaire too (do you include a spouses accounts in a dual income household?).
As a related side note, I think it's absurd how frequently you hear finance articles, financial planners, etc reference enormous sums needed for retirement. Many times they will make the point that if you don't have $3-4m saved for retirement you will be eating dog food and working at Walmart until your death bed.
The numbers are so out of line with most American workers, that it may actually discourage savings to some degree. For a 45 year old making $50k/yr and $25k saved, it would be discouraging to hear that you needed $3m+ to retire comfortable. So discouraging that I'm sure people have said "what the heck am I saving for then?".

FYI: In 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission published a study, mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, which concluded that all financial advisers and stock brokers should be placed under “a uniform fiduciary standard.” Basically this meant that brokers and advisers would have an obligation to put the interests of clients first and must disclose any conflicts of interest that might compromise that duty.
Wall Street was none too happy about this. The industry spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying to prevent this standard from becoming the law of the land. Indeed, of all the regulatory reforms that have come out of Dodd-Frank, nothing seems to displease the financial industry more than the proposed fiduciary rules.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/making-stock-brokers-work-for-clients-is-past-due

Josh Brown's words are just plain true. When I read and listen to all the financial "news," the question before me always is: does any of this apply to me directly? Almost always, it does not. So, I leave my plan in place. I've learned than plans may need to be changed and adjusted along the way. But "adjust" does not mean the same thing as "react."

FYI: Last night at the Nasdaq Marketsite, Mark Hulbert and I served on a panel discussion entitled Defend Yourself: Top threats to investors in 2015. The event was organized by MarketWatch and we spoke to a standing-room only crowd of over a hundred individual investors, Dow Jones journalists and other financial industry folks.
Regards,
Ted
http://thereformedbroker.com/2015/04/19/the-biggest-threat-to-your-portfolio-2/

I just had one question. The intent behind that article by Merriman? Should everyone who has their money in target funds move from Fidelity to Vanguard? Is that it?
Excerpt:
But Fidelity, which has the larger share of assets, charges its target-date customers considerably more — and therefore (predictably) offers considerably less.
The reason for this disparity is really quite simple, and there's nothing hidden about it.
You can argue about this six ways to Sunday, but the laws of mathematics prevail: In mutual funds with nearly identical portfolios, the shareholders who pay higher costs inevitably receive lower returns.
In a nutshell, Fidelity's target-date fund shareholders pay considerably higher expenses than the shareholders in Vanguard's target-date funds. Vanguard shareholders get higher returns.

Huh? I need one sentence to tell me they charge more. I get it. I know A > B. Oh wait, I forgot about the writing quota Merriman has to fulfil. First sentence says Fidelity has more assets and charges more. Then we start with "reason for this disparity". I'm thinking an explanation is forthcoming. I'm still waiting. There is one random statement not wrong that talks about expenses vs return. Okay. Then repeating a conclusion "in a nutshell", really? You already said it a much nuttier shell earlier.
But Merriman, who has the larger share of literary tripe, charges his financial pron readers considerably more - and therefore (predictably) offers considerably less.
The reason for this disparity is really quite simple, and there's nothing hidden about it.
You can argue about this six ways to Sunday, but the laws of mathematics prevail: In financial pron with nearly identical lack of intellectual nuance, the readers who spend more of their time reading inevitably receive lower gratification.
In a nutshell, Merriman's financial pron readers waste considerable additional time than the readers of Jaffy's financial pron. Jaffy's readers get more gratification.

I'm a believer ! A Vision.A Divine Perspective
Founded in 2008 with a vision to offer high performance values-based mutual funds to individuals, financial advisors, and institutions, Eventide has become a leader in faith-based and socially responsible investing. Eventide is the Advisor to the Eventide Gilead Fund and the Eventide Healthcare & Life Sciences Fund, and manages more than $1.2 billion in net assets.
http://eventidefunds.com/about-us/ (Reaganesque) Shining light on a hill !
Join us, therefore, as we continue to explore God’s intent for business, including the ways in which a divine perspective challenges many prevalent notions about business purpose and practice.
http://eventidefunds.com/faith-and-business/
I own ETNHX in an I R A @ Schwab

@MourningStars and @Old_Joe It'd be good to hear Andrew Foster, but on their website it says:
http://www.seafarerfunds.com/ask-seafarer/#how-is-the-fund-different
The Fund has a broad geographical mandate, rather than an arbitrary one prescribed by an index; it spans markets that are variously categorized as “frontier” and “emerging.” The Fund can also invest in developed countries that have significant economic and financial linkages to developing countries.
and also:
http://www.seafarerfunds.com/ask-seafarer/#what-about-the-funds-geographical-exposure
and one more from their website:
Geographic Focus
Developing countries including, but not limited to:
Brazil
Chile
China
Colombia
Czech Republic
Egypt
Greece
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mexico
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Qatar
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
Vietnam
Selected developed countries with significant economic and financial linkages to developing countries, including:
Australia
Hong Kong
Ireland
Israel
Japan
New Zealand
Singapore
United Kingdom

From another post regarding GMO, I felt it necessary to admonish Junkster because he defamed the man in the moon:
Junkster
And if you go back to their forecasts beginning in 2009 you will see how this stuff is worthless - utterly worthless in fact. These guys have no more clue than you, me, and the man in the moon.
And I replied:
Now, now... for all we know the man in the moon might be on top of all of this. Besides, lots of folks like fortune tellers- they've been around one heck of a long time.

"Fortunes Told!! Financial Futures Forecast!!
Seems to fit pretty well here, too.

Article not available to me, but based upon a lot of intense recent research and direct observation I can tell you that the "big if" is whether or not you will require an extended stay in a nursing home. (Think "dementia", in particular.) Last year I spent lots of time checking out facilities and doing the math with a close relative whose spouse had reached the point where she could not reasonably continue to keep him at home. 1.) These places are very, very expensive -- at least the ones you would want to have a relative staying in. 2.) New ones are springing up everywhere, some stand-alone, others associated with upscale "retirement communities", -- virtually all are for-profit enterprises. The investors building these facilities are not stupid, they see the numbers: more people living longer = more people with dementia etc. And with excellent care, you can live a long time with dementia. ( Not to mention that the rates of long-term care insurance are currently poised to skyrocket off the map.)
Having been through all the financial scenarios, I can only conclude that if you are in modestly comfortable (but hardly "rich") circumstances, you can live a good life in retirement and leave something to your heirs -- as long as you (and your immediate dependent(s)) avoid long-term disability. And that is the big crap-shoot.

@davidrmoran Well, you had your chance. In 2009, FAGIX's NAV was thrown back to... 1985! The hands of Time were rewound for you--- you could have done it all over again. :)
@Junkster ETFs for junk? I'll see your 10-ft pole, and raise it to 20-ft--- no way, Jose!
"Financial innovations created in good times often fool people into thinking a silver bullet has been invented that offers a better deal than traditional investments. (By “traditional” I mean investments that are acknowledged to entail increased risk as the price for targeting increased return . . . not the “miracles” where increased return comes gratis.) Many recent innovations have promised high liquidity from low-liquidity assets. [...] however, no investment vehicle should promise more liquidity than is afforded by its underlying assets. [...][W]e’re back to wondering about whether there will be a buyer for the bonds the bank wants to short, and at what price. Thus we can’t get away from depending on the liquidity of the underlying high yield bonds. The ETF can’t be more liquid than the underlying, and we know the underlying can become highly illiquid." Howard Marks, most recent commentary
There are bad vapors arising in BondLand.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-12/flash-move-haunts-bond-traders-heeding-dimon-s-warning-of-crisis

"That means stock-fund investors underperformed the market by approximately 7.4 percentage points annually for three decades, according to Dalbar, a financial-research firm "
Which "Investors" are He referring to?...Just wondering?

FYI: This week’s WEALTHTRACK guest is legendary bond trader, Federal Reserve watcher and economist, Paul McCulley who spent many years in the top ranks of bond giant PIMCO. What financial forces does he see gathering now?
Regards,
Ted
http://wealthtrack.com/recent-programs/mcculley-prescient-thought-leader/

FYI: When he’s not on the road, Marc Dummer wakes up at 5:30 a.m., puts on a pair of shorts, and makes a 30-foot commute to his home office in Scottsdale, Ariz.
He and his wife moved to this recreational hot spot from Des Moines, Iowa, two years ago, as part of a flexible work program at Principal Global Investors. “They said you can live anywhere, as long as you’re near a major airport,” says Dummer, who is among the 6% of the Principal Financial Group’s U.S. employees who telecommute. The upshot: Business trips are less taxing, and time on the job is more productive. “At the end of the day, it’s about quality of your work,” he adds
Regards,
Ted
http://online.barrons.com/articles/principals-income-fund-many-ways-to-a-high-yielding-end-1428722943#printMode
M* Snapshot PGBAX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=PGBAX&region=usa&culture=en-US
Lipper Snapshot PGBAX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/PGBAX?countrycode=US
PGBAX Is Ranked #14 In The (CA) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/conservative-allocation/principal-global-div-inc-fund/pgbax

"Canadians Continue to Take to Liquid Alternatives." Aston Hill Financial--a Canadian asset management firm focused on meeting the needs of its domestic clients.

FYI: A new study finds that the average investor in all U.S. stock funds earned 3.7% annually over the past 30 years—a period in which the S&P 500 stock index returned 11.1% annually. That means stock-fund investors underperformed the market by approximately 7.4 percentage points annually for three decades, according to Dalbar, a financial-research firm in Boston that has updated this oft-cited study each year since 1994.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/05/09/just-how-dumb-are-investors/tab/print/
Dalbar Study:
http://grandwealth.com/files/DALBAR QAIB 2014.pdf