Thanks for your feedback STB65. Yes I've followed Winters for a number of years. He's respected in the financial press and appears on Wealthtrack and other shows often. But you're right... a high expense ratio for underperformance compared to his category. I am wondering if his underperformance is tied to underperformance in emerging markets.

Ha! I don't even know who Felix Salmon is. Maybe some character in the old "Odd Couple" sit-com?
Heck, Gross has been the darling of the financial media for decades. I suppose one of the dangers of Star Manager Syndrome (SMS) with which we are all afflicted to various degrees is that some of these folks might conceivably turn out to be human - and might actually be exposed to the masses as such ... OMG!
And if you think Gross sounds bad, ... should have seen some of the ones I worked under. :-)

Nigeria's Central bank governor Lamido Sanusi has been suspended.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chriswright/2014/02/21/as-sanusi-is-suspended-is-nigeria-still-the-worlds-new-investment-darling/
Forbes: As Sanusi Is Suspended, Is Nigeria Still The World's New Investment Darling?

As Nigeria has shifted from a corruption-addled frontier state to one of the world's few emerging market bright spots, it has been assisted enormously by the charisma and gravitas of two of its financial leaders. One is the coordinating minister for the economy and minister of finance, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, familiar on the multilateral bank meeting circuit for her strong leadership, candidacy for the world Bank presidency - and her colourful headscarves. The other is central bank governor Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, sharp-suited and sharper-minded. It's never been entirely clear how well the two people, or at least their institutions, get along, but they present to the world a credible, smart, articulate face for a country whose finances have often been murky.
But now Sanusi, who was due to step down in June, has been suspended by President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan over allegations of "financial recklessness and misconduct." Few in the west take these words - taken verbatim from a statement issued by the president through his media adviser, Reuben Abati - at face value, and the result has been to erode confidence in one of the few market darlings of frontier-spirited fund managers in recent years.

=====
Feb 20, 2014
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/20/nigeria-sanusi-idUSL6N0LP1TL20140220

INVESTOR BACKLASH
Analysts predicted that foreign investors would now be active sellers of assets in Africa's second biggest economy, just when it had been attracting more interest than ever for the huge potential of its 170 million population and a backlog of work needed to update its inadequate infrastructure.
"The suspension will come as a significant shock to foreign portfolio investors, whose willingness to invest in Nigeria was very much influenced by the transparency and anti-inflation credibility associated with Sanusi's policies," said Razia Khan, head of Africa research at Standard Chartered.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Editor's Corner
Blame It On The Weather
Ron Rowland
Might as well blame it on the weather, since everyone seems to be doing it. From employment statistics to retail sales to corporate earnings reports, the weather is the most trotted out excuse. Yes, it’s been a harsh winter, so it was really no surprise when housing reports hit the skids. After all, homebuilders are required to work outdoors, and even potential buyers must leave the comfort of their current residence when seeking new shelter.
According to the National Association of Home Builders, U.S. homebuilder confidence dropped in February. However, it wasn’t just any old drop – it was the largest one-month drop in history. Known as the NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index, the three-part survey plunged 10 points for the month, from 56 in January to 46 in February. Readings below 50 indicate more builders foresee poor market conditions versus favorable ones.
One of the index’s three components, views on current sales, declined 11 points to 51. Still above 50, but now it’s at the lowest level since last May. Another component, views on sales for the next six months, fell a more modest 6 points to 54. The third component, prospective buyer traffic, erased 9 points to land at 31. “Significant weather conditions across most of the country led to a decline in buyer traffic last month,” according to a statement from the NAHB.
Today, the Commerce Department said housing starts dropped 16% in January. The pace in December was 1.05 million new homes annually. Economists were forecasting just a 4.9% drop to 950,000 for January instead of the 880,000 figure reported. That knocks the pace back to September levels and represents the largest one-month drop in 35 months. New building permits also declined more than expected to an annual rate of 937,000.
Although many would be quick to blame the weather for this drop, housing starts in the frigid Northeast actually soared 62%. It was the remainder of the country pulling the overall number down. Starts fell about 13% in the South, 17% in the West, and the Midwest reported a huge 68% plunge. Weather was a factor, but it wasn’t the only factor. It’s “primarily about demand” according to the chief economist for real estate website Truila.
Meanwhile, economists are likely busy revising their February numbers lower. Homebuilders stock prices have not been dramatically affected so far. SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF (XHB) and iShares U.S. Home Construction (ITB) today closed within 2% of last week’s highs.
Sectors
Anyone doubting the strength of Health Care in the face of the Affordable Care Act at the beginning of the year must be scratching their head by now. Despite the uncertainty and ever-changing implementation dates of various Obamacare provisions, the Health Care sector has provided consistent market leadership this year. Today, its widened lead over other sectors indicates it still has room to run. Technology moved up a notch to second place as the formerly beleaguered semiconductor industry showed new signs of life. Overhead resistance thwarted Utilities’ rally attempt in January. The sector’s February advance is much stronger, allowing it to easily slice through the former resistance area and remain on the heels of Technology. Real Estate fell from second to fourth while maintaining a steady uptrend. Materials, Industrials, Financials, and Consumer Discretionary have been moving in lockstep recently. They all moved from red to green last week, and today they are reporting increased momentum. The good news for Energy, Telecom, and Consumer Staples is that all three erased their negative trends. The bad news is they all continue to lag the market.
Styles
The stock market rally boosted the strength of all our style categories. Mid Cap Growth maintains its place at the top of the list, a position it wrestled away from Micro Cap a week ago. Micro Cap, after briefly falling to fifth, is not about to give up easily and is once again vying for the top spot. Its rise caused Mid Cap Blend, Large Cap Growth, and Mid Cap Value to all slide one notch lower. Small Cap Growth has enough strength to be grouped with the five categories ranked above it. Strength begins to wane starting with Large Cap Blend and continues to drop for each of the four categories below. Small Cap Value is in last place again, but it managed to flip from a negative to positive trend this week.
Global
Europe posted strong results this past week, allowing it to keep its top ranking among the global categories. The U.K. performed even better than Euroland and jumped ahead of the U.S. to grab second place. Although the U.S. slipped to third, it did so while posting strong absolute strength, as evidenced by the large momentum improvements across the sector and style categories. EAFE and World Equity have been running neck-and-neck, and this week the advantage went to EAFE. Canada held steady in the middle of the pack, and Pacific ex-Japan broke free of its negative trend. Four categories remain in the red despite two weeks of strong results. Japan’s economic growth is being called into question again, which has prevented the nation’s stock market to fully participate in the global equity rally. Emerging Markets, China, and Latin America still lag far behind. Latin America actually saw stock prices decline while the rest of the world rallied, suggesting it could fall even further.
Note:
The charts above depict both the relative strength and absolute strength of various market sectors, styles, and geographic locations on an intermediate-term basis. Each grouping is sorted (top to bottom) by relative strength. The magnitude of the displayed RSM value is a measure of absolute strength, which is our proprietary method of measuring and reporting the intermediate-term strength as an annualized value.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Star Investor
Named to Hulbert Financial Digest's Honor Roll
Our sister publication, All Star Investor, is one of only nine newsletters to make the Hulbert Financial Digest's (HFD) Honor Roll for 2012. That is fewer than 10% of the newsletters it follows. All Star Investor earned even more accolades from HFD as it is one of only six to be named two years in a row. The editor, Mark Hulbert, writes "making it onto the Honor Roll really means something" and suggests "you give our Newsletter Honor Roll serious consideration"".
To make the honor roll, a newsletter must perform better than average in both up markets and down markets since 8/31/98, including measures of risk-adjusted performance.
Sign up for a free 14-day trial to an Honor Roll newsletter here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“We won’t know until probably April at the earliest whether there is some change in the fundamentals" of the market because of the weather impact.
Richard Moody, chief economist at Regions Financial (2/19/14)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=== Follow Us===
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Articles Posted at InvestWithAnEdge.com:
January 2014 Archive
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLOSURE
© 2014 AllStarInvestor.com All Rights Reserved. Protected by copyright laws of the United States and international treaties. Nothing in this e-mail should be considered personalized investment advice. Although our employees may answer your general customer service questions, they are not licensed under securities laws to address your particular investment situation. No communication by our employees to you should be deemed as personalized investment advice. Any investments recommended in this letter should be made only after consulting with your investment advisor and only after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company. All Star Investor employees, its affiliates, and clients may hold positions in the recommended securities.
Distribution is encouraged. Please do not alter content.
Courtesy of: www.AllStarInvestor.com, Publisher of www.InvestWithAnEdge.com
This message was sent to Old_Skeet from:
All Star Investor | 11651 Jollyville Road, Suite 200 | Austin, Texas 78759
Email Marketing by
Update Profile | Forward To a Friend

Hi Guys,
The Portfolio Visualizer website truly offers opportunity. Opportunity to learn.
There are so many potential and practical uses for this fine website that it is hard to characterize its full utility and scope in a few words. So I’ll settle for a lesser goal and suggest just a few specific applications.
Any such usage must always be accompanied with the standard cautionary warning that in a dynamic, nonlinear system, specific outcomes are never totally predictable. The Chaos whiz-kids could endlessly pontificate on this matter. But Chaos is not randomness. It borders on the threshold of randomness and it develops in a semi-controlled, non-arbitrary manner.
A famous saying, often but not always attributed to Mark Twain, captures the spirit of the uncertain future: “History does not repeat itself, but it Rhymes”.
Given the unknowable future, an investor must exercise judgment in recognizing that rhyming proclivity and a certain market rhythm. A knowledge of market history is necessary to achieve this level of understanding.
For the global climate change debate, it’s critical to know that the sun-spot activity level has a periodicity of about 22 years. For investors, it is important to know that 22 economic recoveries have occurred since 1904 with an average and median life span of 3.8 and 3.1 years, respectively. This type of knowledge allows an investor to develop a feel for market risk.
In general, the historical returns for the top tier of investment classes and for the next lower order investment categories serve as a guideline for potential, but never guaranteed, future market rewards. The category data provide guidelines for a logical, long-term expectation level from these various groupings, which is especially useful when assembling a portfolio asset allocation plan. Surely if you seek a 6 % to 8% portfolio annual return, a 100% bond portfolio simply will not suffice.
Both baseball and investing are awash with data. Properly interpreting this data, and that also means respecting its limitations, will make anyone a better informed investor when making investment decisions.
In baseball, the Moneyball that Billy Beane deployed was initially rejected by the baseball establishment. It is now the operational rule for all baseball. In the financial world, very little statistical awareness was applied in the mid-1950s. Today, the reverse is true, except for a few old diehards. You get to choose your own pathway.
To develop a feel for the sensitivity of an equity/bond return/risk tradeoff, just play a few what-if games with the referenced asset class allocation tool. Vary the percentages and see how sensitive the overall returns and the standard deviations are to the mix. There are never any free lunches. Vary the study timeframe to isolate sensitivity to that parameter. If you don’t like the historical database, invent your own preferences and use them as input. Experiment liberally!
These types of parametric explorations will shorten your learning period. You will develop a sense of what factors are influential and what are noise. The what-if game scenarios will likely make you a better investor whatever your goals.
You can use the Monte Carlo simulator that is also available on the website to project retirement portfolio survival rates for a variety of market circumstances. These type of studies can be used as positive feedback loops to adjust savings plans and investment risk requirements if you are in your accumulation phase (before retirement).
You can challenge the robustness of your candidate portfolios by checking survival rates for a normal Bell curve distribution and next stress testing it against a Fat Tail model. A version of a Fat Tail model is incorporated within the referenced Monte Carlo code as a user option.
I find it somewhat amusing that some members of the MFO family elect to discourage statistical applications, yet in the same posting endorse stress testing. Stress test against what, if not against some target specification gleaned from history. Statistical history serves to guide any meaningful stress test.
I encourage you to fully exploit the capabilities of this attractive website with its comprehensive set of investment tools. These types of analysis will help you formulate a portfolio that satisfies your return requirements while also serving to measure its risk profile. Of course, there can never be an absolute guarantee given the uncertainty of future exogenous events.
I wish you more informed and more confident investment decision making. You need confidence to stay the course when the potholes appear. And they will most certainly appear.
Best wishes to all and thank you for your participation.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000091580214000008/grandeurpeakemergingmarketso.htm
497 1 grandeurpeakemergingmarketso.htm Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund
(the “Fund”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 19, 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 March 5, 2014, the Fund will close to new investors, except as described below:
·A financial advisor whose clients have established accounts in a Fund as of March 5, 2014 may continue to open new accounts in that Fund for any of its existing or new clients.
·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 a Fund as of March 5, 2014, may continue to open new accounts in that 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.
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.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000091580214000009/grandeurpeakgoandiohardclose.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Fund
Grandeur Peak International Opportunities Fund (the “Funds”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 19, 2014 TO THE PROSPECTUS
DATED AUGUST 31, 2013
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Prospectus for the Funds dated August 31, 2013. 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 March 5, 2014, the Funds will close to all purchases, except as described below. Once the Funds are closed the Funds will no longer accept purchases from new or existing clients, unless the purchase is part of:
·a retirement plan/account which held the Fund prior to this closure;
·an automatic investment plan which was established in the Fund prior to this closure; or
·an automatic reinvestment of a distribution made by the Fund.
These exceptions will be implemented wherever possible, but they may not be possible on all intermediary platforms.
As described in the Prospectus, the Funds’ investment adviser, Grandeur Peak Global Advisors, LLC, retains the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close a Fund or limit inflows into a Fund.

Reply to @catch22:
Hi Catch,
Based on your many questions directed to me, I conclude that you misinterpret my rather generic and innocuous response to Mike’s advisor quagmire. The questions do warrant a reply since they reflect some confusion over my thoughts on the matter.
My opening statement that searching for “an internet personal advisor is a bad idea” is globally intended. Specifically coupling this generalization to the MFO site is definitely “a bridge too far”.
I seek, welcome, and often benefit from exchanges that present diverse opinions on any financial topic. Informed alternate assessments lead to more refined analyses and better solutions when the issue is clearly defined with definite goals.
However, the multifaceted nature of portfolio management make it a horse of a different color. I firmly believe that both the client and his advisor would suffer if the exchanges were constrained to linear Internet communications. This issue has many moving parts and is consequently far more complex.
I believe that a face-to-face interchange is a more productive approach to capture the nuances of each person’s perspective; distance and writing shortcomings compromise this communication.
I thought I made that exact point in my original post with the following two paragraphs.
“I do believe that financial advisors serve a useful purpose, but not as stock or mutual fund pickers. They can guide you in assembling a long-range plan, support you in staying the course during hard times, and adjust the plan as circumstances change.”
“However, that level of advice demands very personal contact, understanding, attention, and mutual trust. It can not be properly executed over the Internet. Sorry Mike, but it is just a bad idea.”
Here is a true story that illuminates the need for close-quarters contact.
When originally assembling its staff, Morningstar recognized the distinction between superior analytical skills and writing communications talent. In these early years Morningstar preferred to hire English majors over Financial graduates. Writing effectiveness was paramount in their worldview at that time. They have modified their policy in that regard as their structure and reach has matured. Many early Morningstar users were not aware of this bias which represents a shortcoming in my view.
So NO, this site has NOT “evolved into an internet personal advisor status.” And I propose that it would be risky business to do so.
I do subscribe to the wisdom of the crowd axiom, but only under certain conditions. The opinions must be well informed by qualified people, they must be independently determined, and they must not be under the influence of a strong, dictatorial leader.
Perhaps applauding “reluctance” is a bit fuzzy description. I feel that giving portfolio advice on the Internet is hazardous business for some of the reasons presented earlier. My singular intent was to salute the forbearance demonstrated by MFOers as they respected the dangers of providing incomplete advisor-like counsel.
I never claim any special knowledge or forecasting prescience. I fully recognize the limitations of my investment experience and skill set. I am an amateur in this arena. Occasionally I might speculate on this group’s position, but any judgments I make are mine alone. I never attempt to represent it as any MFO membership consensus. Likely, no such consensus even exists. I do prefer to reply to postings quickly since issues tend to get rapidly buried with our active contribution rate. The rapidity of the reply is not a valid measure of its quality.
Finally, I found none of the replies unfriendly with hidden nasty intentions, my own post included. In the true spirit of this website, we all attempted to be helpful and to suggest plausible options. I surely welcome Mike to the site and hope he will remain an active participant.
As a concluding observation, I noticed that although you addressed the bulk of your comments to responders, you failed to respond to Mike’s specific questions. That’s too too bad since, given your prior posts as a guide, I suspect you have much to offer on this subject.
Please stay cool; divergent opinions are positive and attractive attributes of this fine website.
Best Wishes.

:) I was reading your post and the server went down. How did you do that???
Guess I didn't notice the MJG's typical passive-aggressive slights or maybe I've just gotten use to them. I remember my first post, oh, probably back in '06-'07, I got bashed by Investor. I asked something about using financial advisors and he scolded me that the topic wasn't appropriate for Fund Alarm. I remember rono came to my aid and told him off. Anyway, it didn't detour me from posting and I hope mikes425 isn't offended either.
And now that I think about it, what ever happen to Investor? He became one of my favorite posters.

Hi Mike. I'll throw in my 2 cents. Advice from this web site or any other would be interesting, informative and entertaining, but nothing more than that. Lots of opinions but no-way a financial plan. It would be interesting though to see how your original advisor set up your conservative-moderate portfolio and what the Mutual Fund Store people suggested.
I'm guessing like everyone here, you want a financial plan in place, one you can sleep with and have trust in. You decided 4-6% returns is sufficient going forward. Not sure how you decided that, but I'll assume you are close to or in retirement. 4-6% wouldn't be an accumulation/growth portfolio for a younger investor unless they already had assets needed.
The advice you are getting here to work with a fee only, fiduciary advisor is what I agree with. You already have advice from one. Get a second opinion to be more self assured. It has to be a one on one discussion as I believe MJG suggested.
I've been coming to this site, first Fund Alarm and now MFO for years and like I mentioned above, it is informative and some times very entertaining - lots of personalities. David's commentaries are better than any magazine or news letter you can buy. You can do things yourself, but sometimes it's nice to have the reassurance of a trusted professional. I know that is true for me. I lost my job a few months back and the first thing I did was seek advise.
Good luck to you Mike!

Reply to @catch22: Come on Catch! I don't think I requested Mike425 to do anything. As MJG already noted, many here would be happy to rip the portfolio apart if Mike would reveal his hand. That's fine and dandy. Ted has already volunteered.
However, there was a more subtle underlying message in my reply: If it were my money - especially a whole lot of it - I'd turn to a highly recommended and qualified locally based certified professional and expect him/her to be there day in and day out as needed. He/she would meet with me regularly, maintain the necessary records, perform the accounting, make contacts with various fiduciaries, provide tax guidance and seek legal advice as warranted. None of these necessary adjuncts to financial planning are we set up to do here at MFO.
Nothing was intended to detract from the board or its members. Matter of fact, I'd suggest Mike425 begin immediately reading at least 10 of Ted's linked articles every day as part of his continuing education. Most are gems that could advance his knowledge and potentially bring him to the point where he'd be comfortable managing his own investments. Regards

Reply to @finder: Last week I exchanged some of my WAFMX into MFMPX shares for some of the reasons being discussed here.Ms Garitz is now responsible as manager or co-manager of over $3 bill in fund assets in three different funds.
Here are some snippets from Morgan Stanley's Fact Sheet and Investment Strategy Profile .It would seem their investment universe is very fluid as are the actual indexes . http://www.msci.com/products/indices/country_and_regional/fm/msci_frontier_emerging_markets_index.html
From Morgan Stanley(emphasis added)
The team allocates the portfolio’s assets among frontier emerging markets based on relative
economic, political and social fundamentals, stock valuations and investor sentiment with bottom-up
fundamental analysis. Under normal circumstances, at least 80% of the portfolio’s assets will be
invested in equity securities of companies operating in frontier emerging-market countries. The
portfolio may also invest in emerging-market securities. The equity securities in which the portfolio
may primarily invest include common and preferred stocks, convertible securities, rights, warrants,
depositary receipts, limited partnership interests and other specialty securities having equity features.
The portfolio may hold or have exposure to equity securities of companies of any size, including small-
and medium-capitalization companies, and to companies in any industry or sector. The portfolio has a
fundamental policy of investing 25% or more of its assets in the banking industry, which cannot be
changed without shareholder approval
Investment Philosophy
The Frontier Emerging Markets Equity team believes that frontier markets are
in various stages of economic development—but generally lag the “mainstream”
emerging markets in terms of economic and financial market reform, and, in
many cases, are overlooked by many foreign investors. Their equity market
performance correlation with other markets has been historically low because
of their limited integration with the rest of the world’s financial markets, thus
providing potential diversification benefits.1
The strategy’s investment team defines a frontier emerging market as a developing
country beyond the generally accepted 26 frontier emerging market countries
within the MSCI Frontier Markets index.
The team regards these “non-core” emerging markets as attractive new investment
destinations with unrealized economic potential

Hi: I second what John and MJG said. And, I don't give specific advice of the nature requested because plain and simple - I'm not qualified to give individual investment advice.
Take any advice received via electronic media with a (heavy) grain of salt. The radio personality who sounds so financially competent and genuinely concerned for your wellbeing today can disappear into the stratosphere tomorrow should his ratings tumble or he anger a sponsor. David (bless him) could conceivably get "PO"ed by some of our antics and yank the plug. (Sure hope he doesn't:-) Point is, this source of advice always has a transient element to it and should not supplant either a (1) fee-based, reputable and knowledgeable, financial advisor or (2) your own decision making based on the financial education you undertake to acquire. (And MFO is a great place to acquire such an education.) Many fund houses also claim to provide such advice. I'd be leery. One size does not fit all and advice over the phone or internet, no matter how well intended, may not be suitable for your own particular situation.
As for the 4-6% average return you'd like (with some ups and downs along the way), that should be eminently achievable using conservative funds over the next decade. Just to tease a little - here's three conservative offerings from T. Rowe Price and how they've fared over the past decade. Part of their performance was due to the strong tail-wind bonds in general experienced during that period. That "assist" has probably ended for the foreseeable future. So, it's of some concern. I'm of the opinion, however, that these managers will continue to navigate these waters with their usual exemplary skills and will continue to post nice returns. Clicking the link brings up each fund. One is a conservative bond fund; one a general purpose (multi-sector) income fund; and one a conservative equity fund. Regards
PRGMX 10 year return: +4.32%
RPSIX: 10 year return: + 5.95%
PRWCX: 10 year return: + 8.77%
The above are for illustration only and not meant to constitute recommendations.

Hi Mike,
Plainly and simply put, an internet personal advisor is a bad idea.
I am pleased that the MFO population en masse did not volunteer for this nearly Mission Impossible task. Once again, they demonstrated the wisdom of the crowd by abstaining. I applaud their reluctance.
The ghost of John Wayne (aka John Chisum) offered some solid generic advice. I’m sure it was not exactly what you were seeking, but it is worth serious consideration. MFOers will proffer outstanding individual mutual fund and ETF tips, but that doesn’t constitute an investment plan.
Yesterday, I posted an article written by Morgan Housel that listed “77 Reasons You’re Awful at Managing Money”. You might want to access that piece.
With a few noun substitutions, Chisum hit on several of Housel’s reasons: “47. You don't realize that the guy giving advice on TV doesn't know you, your circumstances, your goals, or your risk tolerance. He doesn't really care about you, either. He just wants to be seen on TV.” And “61. You think paying your financial advisor and other money managers 2% a year seems reasonable, without realizing that it'll probably eat up one-third or more of your long-term returns.”
Those fees are consistent and, from a compound returns perspective, erode end-wealth since excess returns is a sometimes proposition.
The fees are particularly ruinous given the mediocre performance record of most money managers. Persistent excess returns (Alpha) is an illusive target, and is so rarely achieved that many folks consider it a myth.
I do believe that financial advisors serve a useful purpose, but not as stock or mutual fund pickers. They can guide you in assembling a long-range plan, support you in staying the course during hard times, and adjust the plan as circumstances change.
However, that level of advice demands very personal contact, understanding, attention, and mutual trust. It can not be properly executed over the Internet. Sorry Mike, but it is just a bad idea.
In another direction, your goal to register a 4 - 6 % average return over any extended timeframe is realistic without resorting to active market timing or active fund management.. The most direct way to satisfy this reasonable target is to lower fund expenses, and to lower or eliminate advisor fees. Once again, see Housel’s comments.
Over the long haul your most optimistic investment returns goal should be to shoot for market returns using historical averages for whatever asset mix is compatible with your risk profile. Be assured that your risk profile will change over time too.
If you choose to retain an advisor, don’t pay his fee from your portfolio contributions. Save a little more to cover his costs. A daily visit to Starbucks could be reduced to a twice weekly event. Some research shows that less frequent exposures actually enhance the enjoyment and the end happiness.
I know this is not the response you wanted, but I suspect it is the response favored, but not explicitly quoted, by many MFO members. Their silence is telling you something. I’m not as smart as most who elected to pass on your request. Regardless, I wish you good luck in resolving your dilemma.
Best Regards.

Sharing your portfolio here will attract a lot of responses from some good experts. I would post it and see.
On the issue of whether to do it yourself or have an advisor, another thought would be to split your portfolio if possible and you run one part. See how that pans out. It sounds like you do pay attention to the markets and have some knowledge of how things work.
I do all my investing myself even though I do have access to an advisor. If things go well I can pat myself on the back. If things go not so well, I have myself to look at in the mirror and I learn from my mistakes. Educating ones self about financial matters has a lot of benefits.
Edit: Additionally, my opinion regarding advisors; there are good ones out there but it has to be known that while they might seem to have your best interests in mind, they are also salesmen and they have to have the company's best interests in mind too. A independent advisor is always best.

Hello,
I know that the internet isn't the best place for advice, but I cannot find my mom any Fee only financial advisors in her area. What she is dealing with is way above my pay grade and it involves a possible six figure tax hit.
Here is her issue:
She is sixty two and just suffered from several strokes and simply can't work any longer. She is in management and the DR has warned against any/all stress because of her new found heart issue.
Most of her retirement is in company stock. As of the last statement the account value was 1.7 M - outside of tax shelter. See the issue? She has always been very independent and has been very uncomfortable talking about money matters with me until now. Now I find myself trying to figure out the best path for more diversification ( tons more ) and protect her from the sharks in the investment world. It seems that every "planner" I have talked with has tried to sell the idea of "A" share funds with no thought of the tax issue at hand. Making this situation even worse is I'm three States away.
She does have around 200G in her regular 401K. I simply can't believe how much she has invested in the company stock over the years. I guess this time it has worked out well...for now.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/891190/000093247114004578/arktag.htm
Vanguard Admiral™ Treasury Money Market Fund
Supplement to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus
Important Note Regarding Vanguard Admiral Treasury Money Market Fund
Vanguard Admiral Treasury Money Market Fund (the Fund) will no longer accept additional investments from any financial advisor, intermediary, or institutional accounts, including those of defined contribution plans. Furthermore, the Fund is no longer available as an investment option for defined contribution plans.
The Fund is closed to new accounts and will remain closed until further notice. During the Fund’s closed period, current retail shareholders may continue to purchase, exchange, or redeem shares of the Fund online, by telephone, or by mail.
The Fund may modify these transaction policies at any time and without prior notice to shareholders. You may call Vanguard for more detailed information about the Fund’s transaction policies. Participants in employer-sponsored plans may call Vanguard Participant Services at 800-523-1188. Investors in nonretirement accounts and IRAs may call Vanguard’s Investor Information Department at 800-662-7447.
© 2010 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor. PS 11 122010

Hi Guys,
Morningstar Star ratings should never be used as the sole criteria for mutual fund selection.
Investing is not that simple or easy. Even if the Stars are incorporated into a multi-dimensional criteria set, it should never be awarded a top weighting. The empirical research data strongly supports this judgment.
As early as the mid-1990s academic research and the financial industry recognized and identified deficiencies in the Morningstar system. Even Morningstar acknowledged those same shortcomings.
The ratings are singularly dependent on past performance, and persistence is a real investment quagmire. That is the likely incentive that goaded Morningstar to both continuously modify its ratings, and later, to introduce another, independent rating system, its Metals standard.
Here is a reference to a fair Fiduciary News article that nicely summarizes the checkered history of the Morningstar Stars and alternate ways to use them:
http://fiduciarynews.com/2013/01/morningstar-star-ratings-do-they-or-dont-they-predict/
The Stars are really not a pretty picture if deployed as a single determinant. Anyone who used the Stars as their primary fund screening tool must be more than a little annoyed. There are a legion of respectable critics who have savagely attacked the Stars relentlessly. Here is a reference to a Bill Sharpe study that was reported in 1998:
http://www.stanford.edu/~wfsharpe/art/msrar/msrar.htm
Professor Sharpe was not a happy warrior with any simple ranking system, including his own Sharpe Ratio. Here is yet another more recent study conducted by Vanguard:
http://www.vanguard.com/pdf/icrwmf.pdf
The findings are similar although differing in detail because of study objectives. The Star system is a consistent disappointment when applied as a projection tool. The investment world’s pull of the regression-to-the-mean influence overcomes superior past performance as a general rule. Fund costs are a much more powerful correlation factor.
Even Morningstar somewhat accepts this assessment. Here is a dated reference by Morningstar’s Russ Kinnel that explored the issue:
http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/66497/how-expense-ratios--star-ratings-predict-success.aspx
Kinnel concludes that: “Investors should make expense ratios a primary test in fund selection. They are still the most dependable predictor of performance.” But a multifactor selection model can enhance the success odds.
I’m not advocating that Star ratings are worthless.
I am proposing that when making mutual fund investment decisions, a multifactor model should be assembled that includes costs, turnover rates, management stability, fund size, stock price to earnings ratios, and perhaps a host of other components. These components should NOT be weighted equally. Studies have demonstrated that total fund costs are the dominant success influence, and therefore should be accorded the heaviest weight factor.
By way of disclosure, I do look at the Star ratings when making a fund choice. However, I’m not unduly swayed by its rating. I explore more deeply the reasons why a fund has a lower evaluation. I presently own two mutual funds with two Star scores. I do not find that lowly status to be especially worrisome. It is not the end of the world. Stay the course, guys.
Best Wishes.

A lot of these flow changes are not caused by retail investors. Firms like Good Harbor Financial trade billions of dollars every month and they sold equities and bought bonds last week. There are also a whole bunch of momentum-based strategy ETFs now that have attracted assets in the billions.

Clearly the industry guys don't understand the target audience for this. Just think back to the first time you started with a mutual fund, let alone a regular contribution scheme outside of a 401k and imagine now a completely financially naive person doing this. And you were probably an exception in aptitude and interest in learning or got burnt in the very first investment.
They don't know an IRA from an iPad let alone a Roth.
They wouldn't know who to call to set up things.
Even if they did, they would all invest in the most expensive and mediocre fund their first banker or broker they talked to rather than understand that there are such things as low cost, low volatility etfs or funds.
They would stop contributing the first time, a fund that promised them more than the GIC went down 5 or 10%.
Instead of the industry panicking about money being parked outside their fee structure, they should be thinking about products that will cater to that $15k coming out of that savings plan with allocation funds. The biggest threat to the industry is that people would have achieved a bit of financial literacy and discipline by the time they have saved that $15k that they would not fall prey to exploitative brokers and funds.