Our family income must only support myself and my wife of 53 years. She was a military bride. Our kids have been on their own dollar for a long time, and they are all doing quite well. Although money was very tight earlier in life, we have no financial issues or worries presently. I make no smart investment claims. Our family has been prudent savers, conservative, and lucky. Like most others, our family has shared both lucky and unlucky experiences. We lost a son to cancer.
Every generation experiences a similar set of good fortune and hard obstacles. The world will always be a dangerous place. I vividly remember many more challenging wars with greater sacrifice demands than the current conflicts. I remember double digit inflation in the 1970s and long, exasperating gasoline lines.
Both my wife and I collect social security benefits and have separate company pensions. With just a little spending adjustments we could likely live on that income alone.
If I had one million dollars today, my portfolio would depend on my age and my risk profile. If I were 30, something like 75% of that million would be in equities and hard assets. If I were 50, about 60% of my holdings would be in equities and hard assets. Diversification works.

Thanks for the reply. What is a 'hard asset'?
Human beings are greatly influenced by our genetics and life experiences.
We can not really discuss you genetic optimism - if you have it from there.
Your optimism from life experience is one we can generalize about. You were born in the USA at a time in world history where a baby bust provided a fertile period for success. A person of your generation almost had to try to fail. They were sucked up by the growth. That you went to college in the 50s speaks to the opportunities you had.
Re-read the example I gave above. They do not have such opportunities. Their future is more similar to what we see in Europe now. In addition, the population growth from 7B in 2000 to 10B in 2050s will put pressure on wages and increase commodity prices.
Will stock market prices be up by 2050? Yes, will the person in my example have money to put into the market - probably NO. They will be living paycheck to paycheck.
Even today, you and your wife are an a abnormality - defined pensions (with health benefits?) - very few people have that. I think your perspective would be different if you had to live off your savings alone.
So I can see how you are optimistic - you can live off your pension and SS income. You really do not need your savings to live.
In a way, you do not have any 'skin in the game'.
Please do not take any of this as an insult. It is not intended to be at all. It is a different perspective. A great deal of investing is emotion. With your situation - 2 defined pensions (health ins?), social security, no children to provide for, no chance of losing your job - the emotional aspect of investing is minimal.

Hi Dex,
I believe I fully appreciate the primary thrust of your personal questions.
Who is this MJG guy? Does he really know anything about which he writes? Is he fair and honest in his market viewpoints and analyses? Is he trustworthy?
The Internet is a terrific resource; it is a world of information within almost everyone’s grasp. But that ease of access also encourages charlatans and swindlers with their false representations. Credibility is a daunting hurdle that is difficult to jump with these brief exchanges.
On MFO, I have tried to satisfy that natural skepticism by carefully documenting my posts with applicable data, reliable references and elongated explanations. A few MFO members complain about the length of my posts.
I try very hard not to make unsupported assertions. As my earlier correction testifies, I do not always succeed. I have been posting on MFO since its inception, and for many years on its FundAlarm forerunner. I will stand on that record and its consistency.
I’m not 60 years old; I am 80. I have been investing since the mid-1950s and actually attended Columbia University while Benjamin Graham taught there. Our paths never crossed.
Our family income must only support myself and my wife of 53 years. She was a military bride. Our kids have been on their own dollar for a long time, and they are all doing quite well. Although money was very tight earlier in life, we have no financial issues or worries presently. I make no smart investment claims. Our family has been prudent savers, conservative, and lucky. Like most others, our family has shared both lucky and unlucky experiences. We lost a son to cancer.
Every generation experiences a similar set of good fortune and hard obstacles. The world will always be a dangerous place. I vividly remember many more challenging wars with greater sacrifice demands than the current conflicts. I remember double digit inflation in the 1970s and long, exasperating gasoline lines.
I don’t find the current world situation to be particularly threatening. That’s especially true if one contrasts the present miniscule nuclear threat against that which existed in the 1960s. In that decade, the USSR targeted tens of missiles against every major US city.
I too share some of your concerns about today’s political dysfunction, but that is something that I can’t control. Therefore I will adjust and survive.
Both my wife and I collect social security benefits and have separate company pensions. With just a little spending adjustments we could likely live on that income alone.
If I had one million dollars today, my portfolio would depend on my age and my risk profile. If I were 30, something like 75% of that million would be in equities and hard assets. If I were 50, about 60% of my holdings would be in equities and hard assets. Diversification works.
These are grand generalizations and need refinement based of specific preferences. Other MFO members are much better qualified at assembling detailed portfolios, so I defer to their superior talents.
I still believe that the US has a bright future. Be patient and persevere. You will win the battle; we will win the battle.
Best Wishes.

Hi Guys,
Admittedly, I am an optimistic person. During the latter years of my other life, I was a major organizer and contributor to an endless number of aggressive, challenging engineering work proposals.
Best Regards,

MJG, a couple of questions:
How old are you?
Do you have dependents?
Do you have a defined pension plan?
Will you be receiving Social Security?
If you will be receiving Social Security and/or pension; What percentage of you expenses it be when you collect both?
If, you were 60 today without a job Social Security and a pension how would you invest, let's say, $1,000,000 today - all you have, currently in cash? And, you had to live off it from today at age 60 until 90?
As, an aside, a person born in 1990 is now 24. In there lifetime they have seen:
2 major stock market downturns
3 USA wars
Major intervention by the Federal Reserve
If, they went to college they might have significant debt.
In the current employment market their chances of a defined pension plan is slim to none.
Health benefits have been cut, eliminated, or they have to pay for Obamacare with their after tax dollars.
Gov't debt is approaching 18T and an European style VAT is likely.
The chances of this generation amassing the wealth of those born between 1947-1955, is slim.
So, I'm guessing these people will not be as optimistic about their financial picture.

Hi rjb112,
Thank you for your discerning and kind commentary.
Indeed, the duration and magnitude of both Bull and Bear markets depend upon definitions. The simple plus or minus 20% rule is very common and is the one that I used in my post. In that rule, the 20% is measured from either the high or low water marks immediately before the reversal.
Your astute comments are more market secular cycle in character. They are based on penetrating these previous high or low records. Since the two most recent Bear slides both exceeded -40%, the 20% reversals were only partial by the secular definition, and obviously produced a different duration measurement. Nothing wrong with any of this record keeping as long as we are all familiar with the operative ground-rules.
Cash reserves are costly since they automatically tradeoff investment opportunity for mental comfort. How far we each commit to that tradeoff is a personal balancing matter. Some financial wags are satisfied with a 6 month reserve. I am not so sanguine. That’s why I proposed the one to two year cash reserve. In the end, it’s your decision.
My own decision is that a reserve that covers all potential outliers, that is really deep into protecting against Black Swan events, is far too costly. I’m mentally prepared to accept some low probability cash flow shortfalls so that I can capture more of the higher likelihood investment opportunity paydays. Again the tradeoff is in your camp.
I consider some retirement income as a dead certainty; Social Security and corporate retirement commitments are in that category. Many financial planners recommend assessing these sources as guaranteed fixed income. For many retirees, these constant cash inflows represent a high fraction of the retiree’s daily needs. I suggest that in a market meltdown situation, any income shortfalls might well be accommodated by modest changes in spending habits.
Early in my retirement, I was challenged by this exact scenario. Spending changes are a workable option. Delaying the purchase of an automobile, eating out less frequently, skipping a vacation cruise holiday, and even making the kids initiate a low interest rate college loan do miracles for the financial balance sheet in short order. And they were only temporary anyway.
From my perspective, measuring a market against an earlier peak level is unattractive and inappropriate. It is a false standard for an individual investor because almost nobody entirely entered the marketplace at that precise, unfortunate time. Admittedly, it is a positive signal for a continuing Bull market overall when these high water resistance markers are penetrated. But an individual’s portfolio and his adjustment decisions should not be exclusively tied to historical landmarks.
I’m an enthusiastic and happy Vanguard client. These days, I basically do my banking with them through their short-term corporate bond mutual fund. I do so irregularly and infrequently. I do not sweat small price changes in that fund; it’s noise level stuff at the fraction of a penny level.
And note that “a penny saved will depreciate rapidly”.
Rjb112, you seem to be a highly motivated investor and a financially focused person. That’s goodness unless you allow these positive attributes to squeeze out other important living functions. I guarantee that you will make bad investment decisions. Remember, for every trade there is a successful side, but, also someone was on the wrong side.
I surely have been on that wrong side more than I like to acknowledge. However, I have managed to reduce my error rate over the years. I attribute that reduction to the formulation of my earlier Super Six ( S6), or now Superior Seven (S7), rule discipline.
The original S6 components in general are (1) savings, (2) simplicity, (3) statistics, (4) stability, (5) selectivity, and (6) strategy. Recently I added John Bogle’s stay the course admonishment as the Number (7) “stay” component to form S7.
For example, in the savings component, it took me awhile to recognize that by decreasing my spending only a small percentage, I could double my savings rate. That’s a nice little piece of wisdom.
You are fully aware of my addiction to statistics as a workhorse to guide investment planning and decisions. It is an important element in my list, but I do not permit it to function in isolation to other factors. That admission might shock a few FMOers.
By stability I mean behavioral emotional stability, by selectivity I mean the active and/or passive mutual fund management decision, and by strategy I default to my asset allocation decisions which do morph over time.
I hope you found this reply at least a little informative and useful for your investment purposes.
Best Wishes.

You beat me to it.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000091580214000011/globalreachfundsoftclose0416.htm
497 1 globalreachfundsoftclose0416.htm FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund
(the “Fund”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED APRIL 16, 2014 TO THE FUND’S PROSPECTUS DATED MAY 1, 2013, AS SUPPLEMENTED FROM TIME TO TIME
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Prospectus for the Fund dated May 1, 2013, as supplemented from time to time. 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.grandeurpeakglobal.com or calling us at 1.855.377.PEAK (7325).
Effective as of the close of business on April 30, 2014, the Fund will close to new investors, except as described below:
·A financial advisor whose clients have established accounts in the Fund as of April 30, 2014 may continue to open new accounts in the Fund for any of its existing or new clients, as long as their clearing platform will allow this exception.
·Existing or new participants in a qualified retirement plan, such as a 401(k) plan, profit sharing plan, 403(b) plan or 457 plan, which has an existing position in the Fund as of April 30, 2014, may continue to open new accounts in the Fund. In addition, if such qualified retirement plans have a related retirement plan formed in the future, this plan may also open new accounts in the Fund, as long as their clearing platform will allow this exception.
This change will affect new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund either directly or through third party intermediaries. Existing shareholders of the Fund may continue to purchase additional shares of the Fund.
As described in the Prospectus, the Fund’s investment adviser, Grandeur Peak Global Advisors, LLC, retains the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close the Fund or limit inflows into the Fund.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

Just got the notice from Grandeur Peak. The lead paragraphs read:

We are announcing today that the Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund (GPROX/GPRIX) will close to new investors on April 30, 2014. The Fund will remain open to existing investors, but will no longer accept new shareholders after April 30th. Retirement plans and financial advisors with existing clients in the Fund will still be able to invest in the Fund for existing as well as new clients as long as their clearing platform will allow this exception.
The Global Reach Fund currently has $101M under management. As you know, we consider capacity at the firm level as well as the Fund level. Across Grandeur Peak we now have over $2.1B under management. We have talked from the founding of the firm about restricting our total assets invested in global small/micro-cap stocks to around $3B. We are soft closing the Global Reach Fund earlier than originally planned to allow continued access for existing shareholders while also preserving capacity for the remaining global small/micro-cap funds we intend to launch over the coming years.

I'd look seriously at the fund. GPROX was intended to be the firm's flagship fund; the broadest portfolio offering exposure to all of their best ideas. All of the others (three currently active, three planned) would be just subsets of the Global Reach strategy. The S&P Index vs Active calculations are painfully consistent: international small cap is the only category were active managers consistently outperform passive. The managers have a great performance record and have already closed three of their four funds to new investors. None of the funds yet has a three-year record, though Mr. Gardiner has about a 30 year record to work from. These are certainly not low-priced funds but investors seem to have been getting ample value for the money they're paying.
Here's our profile from July 2013: Grandeur Peak Global Reach.
For what interest it holds,
David

@Charles has part of the answer. But borrowing to invest is just a small part of it. Fed policies make a lot of existing money available to invest from people who have capital.
Part of it is from a need to increase returns from low yields on bonds. Part of it is from the moral hazard of Fed action like QE which reduces long term rates but also extends the time frame in which one can expect low interest rates. After all they won't increase interest rates until they reduce QE. So the probability of loss in markets from interest rate movements decreases which decreases Value at Risk measures which means more capital can be put at risk.
I am sure many here have increased their allocation to equities from some of these reasons whether aware of the reasons or not and it snowballs to create an asset bubble.
This has nothing to do with the economy, very little of this is being deployed for any productivity that contributes to economic growth. It is just a financial ponzi scheme bidding up prices.
Economic growth requires Increase in broad consumption from the masses that leads to increased production in a virtuous cycle. This requires a start to growth in income. This has not happened at all. In fact, quite the opposite.
The earlier real estate bubble allowed the masses to monetize it, giving people the money in lieu of income to consume. That stimulated the economy as a consequence. This financial market asset bubble isn't the same. The gains are concentrated in the top 5% or so since the 95% doesn't have enough capital, and so doesn't increase consumption in the same way.
What is a mystery to me is the mechanism by which the Bernanke Fed expected the money velocity to increase in the economy with their policies rather than just snowball the financial market gains as it has done.

Hmmm. I think the bubble scenario is that banks, other financial institutions, hedge funds can borrow money at near nothing and invest those funds in higher yielding positions. So, in effect, buying on margin with "Money for Nothing" and "artificially" escalating valuations. Similar, I suspect, to when folks could buy homes for low starter rates and no money down; consequently, "artificially" inflating home prices. That's probably simplest scenario for my simple brain.

Hi MarkM,
Thank you for your rapid response.
My overarching takeaway from your various replies is that you have discovered the magic elixir that permits a respectable estimate of market-wide FMV, at least one focused on longer-term projections. Even given your stated reservations, such a discovery deserves a substantial Wow exclamation. That’s an impressive accomplishment that warrants attention.
A reliable and reasonably accurate FMV methodology has eluded even the very best individual minds (guys of the caliber of Benjamin Graham and his student Warren Buffett) and institutional entities (Vanguard, JP Morgan, Morningstar) for decades. Congratulations.
Again from your posting, I realize that you have been hampered by some difficulties in fully implementing the approach. For example you stated that: “Frankly, its hard as hell to adopt this approach when the market moves away from you and hard as hell again when markets fall and there seems to be no good reason to place money at risk!” and later “Long term it works but is very difficult to execute.”
I’m puzzled by these comments. They certainly are suggestive of significant holes in your approach given these limitations. Also, why the procedure would be “difficult to execute “ totally escapes me. Could the mathematics be that gory? I doubt it. Most investors, including a high percentage of professional wizards, are actually mathematically phobic.
Additionally, it is worrisome that your FMV signal has a “momentum concession” given that you use it as a longer term forecasting tool. Momentum is a dissipative force. I’m uncomfortable with any momentum adjustment that is purportedly operative a decade into the future. Market momentum effects usually disappear in less than 3 years.
Your reservations seem to point to a highly idiosyncratic technique. I hope it is not that individual and distinctive. If it is so, I understand your unwillingness to discuss any of its details whatsoever. It offers little value to MFO members or an even wider audience.
Under these circumstances I would be circumspect about anticipating successful applications in the future. These types of formulations that have benefited from heavily restricted success have a dismal persistency record and are hazardous as projection tools. Professionals relearn this hard lesson time and time again.
However, if you judge the approach to not be idiosyncratic, I strongly urge you to consider formally documenting it. You could be “Famous by Friday” as California tennis coach Vic Braden often proclaimed. The investment world needs a semi-reliable 10-year forecasting tool. History will remember you if you develop such a tool.
I would not simply reveal the method specifics on this fine website. MFO has too limited a membership. Rather, I suggest you submit an outline to a respected financial and/or business journal. If accepted after peer review, your accomplishment will be widely circulated, enthusiastically received, and your contribution firmly acknowledged for all time.
Regardless of the present state of your still undefined, mysterious approach, and its general application, I wish you well in your forecasting efforts. If what you do is too complex or conditionally fragile, I would likely choose not to deploy it for my purposes. Everyone chooses their own investment poison.
I am a satisfied member of the simplicity is better cohort. That philosophy keeps my costs low, permits me to stay the course under challenging circumstances since I understand my strategy, and allows me to eschew risky investments that test foolish boundaries.
I wish you continued success and good luck in your future investments and all your financial matters.
Best Regards.

FYI: Copy & Paste 4/11/14: Joe Light WSJ
Regards,
Ted
Asset managers have created exchange-traded funds for just about every investment trend—from commodities to emerging markets to mortgage-backed securities. The latest idea: bond ETFs designed to insulate investors from rising interest rates.
Companies including BlackRock BLK -0.76% and WisdomTree Investments WETF -3.32% have launched or filed plans for at least 17 such ETFs in the six months through March, according to investment research firm Morningstar. That is as many as in the prior three years combined, and the new ETFs now hold about $430 million. They come on the heels of a stellar year for actively managed bond mutual funds that use similar strategies to hedge interest-rate risk.
If successful, the new bond ETFs, some of which are known as "zero duration" or "negative duration" ETFs, would be an important driver for an industry whose product engine has slowed. In 2013, fund companies launched 158 ETFs, the fewest since 2009.
Zero-duration funds and ETFs typically buy longer-term bonds but then "short" Treasurys or use Treasury futures contracts to counterbalance losses that would have otherwise occurred if rates rose. Negative-duration funds take the strategy a step further and seek to make money if rates rise, though they lose money if rates fall. Bond prices move in the opposite direction of yields.
"Duration" is a measure of funds' sensitivity to interest rates. The price of a fund with a duration of five years, for example, would fall 5% if interest rates rose one percentage point immediately, before factoring in yield.
Yet experts caution that some of the funds carry risks that investors may not anticipate and have costs that aren't readily apparent
Fears of further bond-market losses are on the mind of many small investors.
The Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, a broad index of corporate and government bonds, lost 1.92% last year, its worst loss since 1994.
"It's probably the main question we get from clients: 'How will you protect me from rising rates?'" says Jason Gunkel, a senior financial analyst at Sherpa Investment Management in West Des Moines, Iowa, which manages about $370 million.
During economic downturns, interest rates tend to fall, which helps traditional investment-grade bond funds rise in price. On the other hand, many of the new ETFs use "short" strategies that cause them to either not move in price or to fall in price when rates fall.
That could lead to unpleasant surprises for investors who expect bond funds to protect them during a stock-market drop, says Dave Nadig, chief investment officer at fund tracker ETF.com.
The new ETFs tend to have annual expense ratios of less than 0.5%, or $50 per $10,000 invested, compared with about 0.3% for typical bond ETFs.
However, depending on how the fund or ETF hedges its interest-rate exposure, certain costs might not appear in the expense ratio, Mr. Nadig says. If a mutual fund shorts Treasurys to hedge interest-rate risk, the cost of taking the short position gets included in the fund's expense ratio, he says. However, if the fund or ETF uses derivatives, the cost isn't included and is instead embedded in the fund's performance, he says.
The shorting expenses of interest-rate-hedged funds is directly tied to the yields that Treasurys pay, which means the costs of the funds will rise if interest rates do, Mr. Nadig says.
The complexity of the funds makes some financial advisers wary.
"We're concerned that some of these negative-duration funds are highly complex and have characteristics that aren't easily discerned," says Antonio Caxide, chief investment officer at Hamilton Capital Management in Columbus, Ohio, which manages $1.3 billion.
In addition to the zero-duration and negative-duration ETFs, recently launched funds include more-conventional ones that hold short-term bonds, and "floating rate" funds, whose yields can rise with interest rates.
BlackRock's iShares unit, the largest manager of ETFs, hopes to launch a zero-duration investment-grade corporate bond ETF and a zero-duration high-yield bond ETF in the second quarter, pending Securities and Exchange Commission approval.
Since September, the New York-based company already has launched five ETFs that target short-term or floating-rate bonds. One such ETF, iShares Short Maturity Bond, NEAR -0.04% has garnered more than $200 million since its September launch. The fund, which has an annual expense ratio of 0.25%, has returned 0.45% this year through Thursday.
WisdomTree in December launched four zero-duration and negative-duration funds that use derivatives to protect against interest-rate risk or to profit from rate increases.
It remains to be seen whether the new funds, most of which still have little in assets, will catch on. However, investors have shown a huge appetite for bond funds that won't be damaged by rate increases.
"Interest rates will rise,'' says John Otte, a 63-year-old writer in Urbandale, Iowa, who says he plans to retire in a couple of years and recalls large bond losses when interest rates spiked in the 1970s and 1980s. "It's inevitable."
.

Here Here!
"DALBAR pins the blame squarely on financial-services firms, which speak an arcane lingo that simply hasn’t registered with most Americans."
It's a racket folks. "Obfuscate" is the correct word. Make things so complex that average investors are unable to understand what you're actually doing and why your excessively high fees are justified. I'll toss most market neutral and LS funds into this category. (Am sure there are many others).
My simple advice: Read the latest annual fund report and look at the manager's allocation to various assets, his/her justification, what changes in that allocation have been made recently, and what the reason(s) were. If you can't figure out what the #*!* they're talking about, get the *#!# out. No - you're not dumb. They're just hoping you are. :-)
I'm starting to think this is why many ratings by M* and others appear to make so little sense. The obfuscation by the fund's managers in their description and prospectuses have misled the rating companies into thinking the fund belongs in some "unique" category where it somehow rises to the top. It's not what it seems - but more likely a good job gaming the system and exacting higher fees from we unwary investors.
Put another way - If I was going to start a new fund, before designing it, I'd look to see which M* "categories" charge the highest average fees. Than, I'd shape the fund, prospectus, etc. to qualify for inclusion in that category. If presented as simply an "equity" fund, a .90 ER probably would make it non-competitive among some of its finer peers. But, if I could somehow "sell" the fund as "market neutral", that .90 ER would look darned nice against the competition. My new fund might even vault to the top of the stack.
And, if you haven't read Ed Studzinski's on-the-mark comments about fees in David's latest (April) commentary, be sure to do so!

More of the flawed metrics being propagated.
It serves everyone's purpose though.
Financial industry likes it hoping investors will just hold under any conditions and let them siphon off fees regardless of what happens to the markets.
Average investors like it for the same reason people liked to watch trash shows like Geraldo or whatever is the equivalent these days. Makes them feel good about themselves that they are not as bad as the "average" rather than suffer through the feeling that others are doing better than themselves.

"Let's start with the big banks. On Thursday, Ally Bank — once known as the General Motors Acceptance Corporation — went public with a $2.38 billion IPO. Proceeds went to the U.S. Treasury, which spent $16.2 billion bailing out GMAC in the wake of the financial crisis. The Treasury, which once owned as much as 74% of the company, now owns about 17%."
LOL. Happy talk about how a terrible financial company that had to be bailed out (and was rebranded with a cheery, cheesy name - "Hey taxpayers, we're your Ally - especially when we need to get bailed the bleep out again.") was able to be dressed up and sold to a market that....didn't much seem to care for the IPO.
"JPMorgan Chase (JPM), for example, has a 2.7% dividend yield, and sells for 1.1% of book value per share."
And hey, after today's selloff after JPM earnings weren't taken well, it's even cheaper.
I continue to like Financial Technology, which is dominated by two similarly named companies, FIS (FIS) and Fiserv (FISV). Necessary products and services for the industry and two names dominate the sector.

Notion of activism has broadened significantly from the earlier stand on principle to influence the company to the more recent increase my return in capital via financial shell games. The latter is an off shoot of too much cheap money allowing individual bets to dominate average investors.

Anyone have experience with this financial management company out of Richmond, VA? They have three in-house funds. The oldest is DAVPX. Two new ones recently got their first morningstar ratings: DEOPX and DVIPX. All fairly small ($100-300M) and 30-50 holdings. Styles are LG, LV, and MG (which looks more all-cap).

"I was lucky to get into the institutional class share without meeting the $1 million min"
How were you able to do that?
I know that for those with an account at discount broker TD Ameritrade, there are a limited number of institutional share class funds that can be invested in without the high initial amounts.
Regarding Loads: I think it's a real shame that load funds don't routinely have no load share classes for those who do not use a financial adviser or full service broker.

Picking up on some of hank's thoughts... Investing and accumulated wealth, in part, stems from Saving. Savings stems from income minus spending. A budget attempts to priorize spending (into needs and wants) against cash flow (income).
I believe Savings (no matter how small) are a need not a want.
To me, financial "true grit" is developing and sticking to a "goal based budget' that, over a life time, provide finanacial independence, financial opportunities and life style experiences that would not have been possible otherwise.
To me, It starts with Savings being thought of as a need, not a want.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://wealthtrack.com/recent-programs/clements-zweig-greatest-financial-challenges/

FYI: Copy & Paste 4/4/14: Joe Light WSJ
Regards,
Ted
There is expensive and then there is exorbitant.
Small-company stocks increasingly look like the latter.
Consider: The S&P 500 index of large-company stocks is up 176% since its low on March 9, 2009. Over the same period, the Russell 2000 index of small-company stocks is up 236%.
On some measures of value, small-cap stocks—which are often used to juice a portfolio—look pricier than they ever have been. With that in mind, investors should consider cutting their holdings of small companies and favor the least speculative parts of the market, some experts say.
"No matter how you slice the data, small caps look expensive," says Steven DeSanctis, a small-cap strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Investors expect bigger returns on small-company stocks, typically those with a market capitalization of $5 billion or less, than their larger peers. That is because small companies have uncertain earnings and revenues, making them riskier.
But historically that small-cap premium has been relatively tiny, and some researchers argue that it doesn't even exist, says William Bernstein, co-principal of investment-advisory firm Efficient Frontier Advisors in Eastford, Conn.
Mr. Bernstein says that he doesn't think small-company stocks are pricey enough to warrant making big shifts in a portfolio. But by some measures, small U.S. companies look increasingly rich.
There are lots of ways to determine if a stock is overpriced.
For small caps, Doug Ramsey, chief investment officer at investment-research and asset-management firm Leuthold Group, likes to look at the stock price divided by an average of five years of earnings, which he says historically has been the most useful in picking times to buy and sell.
By that method, the median small-company stock has a price/earnings ratio of 28.4, well above the historic median of 21.4, according to Leuthold. That also is a much steeper price tag than that of large-company stocks, which have a P/E of 21, nearly the same as they have had historically. The 34% premium for buying small caps over large caps also is well above the mere 2% median premium they have had since 1986.
Some investors prefer measuring the stock price against sales, since small companies may not have profits. By that method, such stocks look even more overpriced. At the end of February, the latest data available, the Russell 2000's price/sales ratio was about 1.6, the highest it ever has been, according to Mr. DeSanctis, whose data go back to 1979.
For long-term investors who aren't convinced small caps are overpriced and prefer not to sell outright, an option might be to rebalance their portfolios ahead of their normal timetable.
Small-cap stock prices would have to rise another 7%, assuming five-year earnings stayed constant, to reach the height of expensiveness they attained during the dot-com bubble.
But more-active investors, such as Mr. DeSanctis and Mr. Ramsey, advise that investors start scaling back their small-cap exposure sharply now.
One good reason: Toward the tail end of bull markets, large-cap stocks tend to lead small caps, Mr. Ramsey says. At more than 60 months, the current bull market already is longer than the one that ended with the financial crisis in October 2007.
Small-cap stocks make up between 7% and 10% of a typical U.S. total-stock-market mutual fund or exchange-traded fund. For their own portfolio, investors would be well-served to cut that in half to 3.5% to 5%, Mr. Ramsey says.
The balance can go to parts of the market that look cheaper. Right now, that means going abroad, Mr. Ramsey notes. The cheapest options include the Vanguard Total International Stock VXUS -0.23% ETF, which charges annual fees of 0.14%, or $14 per $10,000 invested, while the iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock IXUS -0.24% ETF, which costs 0.16%.
To the extent that an investor keeps a small slug of small caps, he should tilt toward high-quality companies with earnings and away from companies not making a profit, Mr. DeSanctis says. That means being wary of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, many of which aren't profitable.
And in choosing between overpriced stocks or overpriced bonds, don't forget cash. It won't give a positive return, but could come in handy once a drop in stocks inevitably arrives.
Russell 2000 Index: http://www.russell.com/indexes/americas/indexes/fact-sheet.page?ic=US2000
S&P 600 Index: http://www.spindices.com/indices/equity/sp-600
.

Hi Guys,
With an apology to our own John Wayne, I suspect it is essential for each and everyone of us to have “True Grit”. In the investment community, passion, perseverance, and persistence are dependable characteristics for financial success. It is critical to stay the course.
University of Pennsylvania researchers are developing a wide database that purports to measure Grit from a simple 12-question test that is accessible on their website.
The initial work in this nascent field can be traced to some experiments conducted at Stanford a few decades ago. In these experiments children were seated alone at a table. The test conductor placed a sweet treat on the table and told the very young kids that they could either eat the sweetie now or wait for 15 minutes with a promised doubling of the sweeties. Upon their return, if the child had resisted the immediate attraction, he/she was indeed rewarded for his patience.
Some waited; others did not. The real test was finally completed a dozen years later when these same test subjects were interviewed with regard to their schooling success. Those who resisted the immediate satisfaction of the tempting treats as youngsters recorded far more success in their subsequent schooling accomplishments. The current studies have expanded from this simple beginning.
Here is a Link to an article by Dan Solin titled “Grit is Critical to Your Success”:
http://thebamalliance.com/blog/grit-is-critical-to-your-success-dan-solin/
Grit is not a constant. Solin provides a few tips to toughen your grit quotient. Based on our many commentary exchanges, I suspect that MFO members have an abundance of Grit. I challenge you to take the test; it requires just a few minutes of your time. Here is the Link to the quiz:
https://sasupenn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_06f6QSOS2pZW9qR
There are no right answers here. But a high Grit score seems to be an attractive attribute that should contribute to an investor’s overarching market performance. That’s especially true given the definition of Grit as formulated by one of its key researchers, Angela Duckworth. Her powerful definition is repeated here for your convenience and inspiration. It was lifted from an interview with Forbes about a year past.
“Grit is passion and perseverance for very long-term goals. Grit is having stamina. Grit is sticking with your future, day in, day out, not just for the week, not just for the month, but for years, and working really hard to make that future a reality. Grit is living life like it’s a marathon, not a sprint.”
This definition directly applies to successful investing.
The brief test that I hope you completed has been given to all sorts of groups over a long timeframe. At West Point, the freshman class is exposed to it. It is a better predictor of future undergraduate overall performance than an IQ test.
Let us know how high on the Grit scale you measured.
I wish you all True Grit.
Best Regards.