Reply to @BobC: Hi Bob. I think the comments on this post come from people who probably have an understand personal finance, love to do it themselves and make it their hobby. What goes over their head is that they are unique. They make up probably less than 5% of the population.
Most of my friends and coworkers are just not interested in learning about different investments, portfolio construction, ect... It bores them. They know they have to save in a 401k and they religiously do so every pay check and they put their money into Target Date funds, the best invention ever made for the typical retirement saver. They only become aware that they need advise when it gets close to retirement, or in our work case, another down sizing. Then the talk at the break room table is, my adviser said this or my advisor said that.
In most cases, I think, people seek out financial advise. They wouldn't be seeking if there wasn't a need, a perceived benefit and piece of mind.

From Jane Bryant Quinn:

There's no reason to own 10 or 15 [mutual funds], [financial planner Joseph] Tomlinson [of Greenville, Maine] says. They probably overlap each other. If you choose well-diversified funds, such as low-cost index funds that follow separate markets, all you need is a broad U.S. fund, a small-company fund, an international fund, and an intermediate term bond-fund, spreading your money among them in whatever way you think is best.

This is essentially a slight variation on the six bucket approach I mentioned above. Differences are that she ignores cash, she breaks global into international and domestic, and in bonds she ignores junk and international (the only substantial difference).
But while complaining that more funds would overlap, she chooses to do exactly that, by combining a small cap domestic fund with a broad based domestic fund. I agree with that approach however, because it offers ability to adjust relative weightings. By following that concept in the other areas (international and fixed income), one gets up to ten funds, despite the admonishment in her article to avoid so many.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/912028/000091202813000006/summitgnmaptasticker12-20133.htm
497 1 summitgnmaptasticker12-20133.htm
T. Rowe Price Summit GNMA Fund
Supplement to Prospectus Dated March 1, 2013
On October 21, 2013, the Board of Directors of the T. Rowe Price Summit GNMA Fund (“Fund”) approved a proposed merger under which the assets of the Fund would be transferred to the T. Rowe Price GNMA Fund in exchange for shares of that fund.
The merger is subject to the approval of a majority of the Fund’s shareholders. All Fund shareholders at the close of business on January 30, 2014, the “record date,” will be eligible to vote on a plan of reorganization in connection with the proposed merger. It is anticipated that proxy materials and voting instructions will be mailed to shareholders of record in early February, and a special shareholder meeting will be held on or around April 30, 2014. The rationale for the proposal and detailed information regarding the proposed merger and the T. Rowe Price GNMA Fund will be provided in the proxy materials. If the proposal is approved by a majority of the Fund’s shareholders, the merger is expected to take place on or around May 16, 2014, at which point Fund shareholders will receive shares of the T. Rowe Price GNMA Fund representing the same total value as their shares of the Fund on that date. The merger will be structured as a tax-free exchange for shareholders of the Fund, although it is possible that the Fund could declare a taxable distribution to its shareholders shortly before the merger is consummated.
In anticipation of the merger, the Fund will close to new accounts and additional purchases. On page 11, the language under “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” is replaced with the following:
The fund will not accept any new accounts and will stop accepting purchases of additional shares from existing shareholders, other than shares purchased through the reinvestment of dividends, after the close of the New York Stock Exchange (normally 4 p.m. ET) on Monday, January 27, 2014. Closing the fund to new accounts and additional purchases does not restrict shareholders from redeeming shares of the fund. You may redeem or exchange shares of the fund on any day the New York Stock Exchange is open for business by accessing your account online at troweprice.com, by calling 1-800-225-5132, or by written request. If you hold shares through a financial intermediary, you must redeem and exchange shares through your intermediary. The fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion and without prior notice, to impose further restrictions or permit additional investments.
The date of this supplement is December 10, 2013.

Reply to @jerry:
I am a shareholder also since 2008. There was a restriction effective July 1, 2010, which states:
"...The following paragraph is added under the section "GENERAL INFORMATION." The following policy will be implemented by the Fund after July 1, 2010:
Due to the relatively high cost to the Fund of maintaining low balance accounts, the Fund requests that you maintain an account balance of more than $1,000. If your account balance is $1,000 or less for 90 days or longer, the Fund reserves the right to redeem the shares in your account at their current NAV on the redemption date after giving you 60 days notice to increase the balance. The redemption of shares could have tax consequences for you."
I believe the above paragraph was put into place to prevent one share trading/gifting.
With the prompt closing and inability to purchase through third party financial intermediaries, potential investors will have a tough time buying into the fund before the close of the market on December 10.

Reply to @Junkster:
Hi Junkster,
Thank you for taking time to read and reply to my post. I appreciate both your interest and your thoughts on the matter. You surely present a welcomed different prospective.
Executing a successful investment program may conceptually be a simple task, but it is not an easily executed assignment. Plentiful evidence of the difficulty overwhelms us. Individual investors only recover one-third of the market rewards over time; professional money and mutual fund managers often fail to capture index-like returns. The interconnected linkages that govern macro and microeconomic happenings are far too numerous and too dynamic to model with any reliable fidelity.
I certainly agree with your observation that an individual with a 2 million dollar portfolio and a drawdown requirement of only 35 thousand dollars annually doesn’t need the sophistication of a Monte Carlo analysis. That’s an easy strawman case to make.
My posting was firmly directed at those folks who struggle to satisfy savings, investment, and retirement decisions under tipping point conditions. I suspect most folks fall into that stressful category. My wife and I sure did. Monte Carlo analysis served us well during such worrisome circumstances.
Yes, during my pre-retirement life I was an engineer. My wife was an experimental scientist. We consult and make team decisions. We were both intimately familiar with mathematical tools and modeling construction so the Monte Carlo approach was a comfortable tool to adopt to supplement our financial decision making. Not everyone will be in a similar position.
If Monte Carlo methods are outside your comfort zone, simply do not use them. Everyone has the freedom to choose their own investment philosophy, rules of engagement, and toolkit to implement their selected strategy. I welcome the diversity in strategies since these ultimately drive the marketplace to more efficient pricing. Active traders are a necessary ingredient in that mix. I thank them all for carrying a heavy load.
Investor success and high IQ doesn’t always highly correlate. Emotional stability and behavioral biases have a major impact on investment success. In the preface to Ben Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor” classic book, Warren Buffett stated that, “To invest successfully does not require a stratospheric IQ . . . . What’s needed is a sound intellectual framework for making decisions and the ability to keep emotions from corroding the framework”. Monte Carlo calculations will do nothing to control the emotional dimension.
Studies that examine the relationship between IQ and investing results yield a mixed conclusions bag. Here is an abstract from a study completed by Mark Grinblatt and company titled “IQ, Trading Behavior, and Performance”:
“We analyze whether IQ influences trading behavior, performance, and transaction costs. The analysis combines equity return, trade, and limit order book data with two decades of scores from an intelligence (IQ) test administered to nearly every Finnish male of draft age. Controlling for a variety of factors, we find that high-IQ investors are less subject to the disposition effect, more aggressive about tax-loss trading, and more likely to supply liquidity when stocks experience a one-month high. High-IQ investors also exhibit superior market timing, stock-picking skill, and trade execution.”
Other studies conflict with this IQ correlation finding.
I have always favored Tom Bulkowski’s technical analysis because he typically includes probability of success odds for the countless formations that he analyzes. These days, I use his graphic interpretations as a secondary, confirmatory-like reference. Here is the Link to his superior website:
http://thepatternsite.com/
I would never solely use technical analysis when making an investment decision. Likewise, I would never base a decision solely on Monte Carlo analyses. Each has its merits and pitfalls. Each tool in an investor’s toolkit must be judiciously used for specific purposes. As a general rule, the more tools accessible, like the MFO website, the higher likelihood of a successful investment decision.
By the way, Bulkowski’s book “Encyclopedia of Chart Patterns” contains an excellent Statistics Summary section of all his pattern formations with a listing of a probability failure rate and a likely estimated gain or loss. Most technical analysis books do not document these additional estimates.
Indeed, the MFO site likely attracts conservative investors. That’s obvious because it primarily services mutual fund users. Mutual funds, with its holdings diversification, were originally constructed as long-term investment vehicles offering a lower risk profile than individual stocks. From a time perspective, that has devolved somewhat. Today, relaxation of trading rules is the order of the day by profit seeking firms. Basically, I still do not play in that arena. I remain in the conservative investor camp, especially when using a trading infrequency measure.
All investors have the freedom to choose their own poison, their own modus operandi. I was just alerting MFOers to the potential benefits of Monte Carlo simulations, perhaps another form of poison, but from my perspective, a wealth protecting, somewhat magical elixir.
Once again, thank you for participating in this exchange.
Best Wishes.

>>>>I truly do not understand the reluctance of a few MFO participants to consider adding Monte Carlo methods to their financial toolbox. It is a powerful tool with unique capabilities and is specifically designed to address complex and uncertain issues.<<<<
One poster (not me) said this "simulation nonsense" was good for entertainment and self deception. It's nice to see some free spirits posting here for a change instead of the usual ultra-conservative investors who so dominate this board. I believe that poster also trades the leveraged Pro Funds both long and short, something I am totally opposed to, but again, a fresh change of pace for this forum.
Look, I respect the fact you are into stats, numbers, the complexity of investing, and believe investment success is a function of a high intelligence (albeit in reality, or at least my world, there is nothing complex whatsoever about it and with no great intelligence required) I would wager your professional background was engineer, scientist, computer programmer, or the like. But not everyone here comes from such a background. Read the Tao Jones Averages by Bennett Goodspeed sometime when you get a chance, a guide to whole-brained investing. You will never change the rigidity of your mindset and that's fine. We are who we are. But go with the flow a bit more and realize not everyone here is on the same page as you when it comes to investing. I know they certainly aren't on the same page as me and that doesn't bother me one bit. I am not here to preach and evangelize seeking converts to my way of thinking. Just offering a different perspective from an old-timer who made his first trade almost 50 years ago (five shares of Chrysler)
As for monte carlo, again, say an hypothetical investor age 66 has a $2,000,000 nest egg with a withdrawal rate of $35,000 annually. Do you need monte carlo simulation or some advanced degree to realize he has more than enough of a nest egg where he doesn't have to obsess about outliving his nest egg, especially since that nest egg is continually compounding. Obviously someone in less beneficial circumstances age-wise/portfolio size/withdrawal rate size might have to fret about outliving his nest egg. But I would think they might be better off spending less time on the monte carlo "nonsense" and more time on compounding their nest egg. Just my two cents from a simple-minded trader/investor who marches to the beat of a different drummer.
Edit: Forgot to mention, as wordy, repetitive, and haughty as you posts sometimes may be, still enjoy reading what you have to say so keep them coming.

Hi Guys,
I truly do not understand the reluctance of a few MFO participants to consider adding Monte Carlo methods to their financial toolbox. It is a powerful tool with unique capabilities and is specifically designed to address complex and uncertain issues. Offhand dismissal of the technique is not a sound strategy.
Monte Carlo formulations have a distinguished scientific history. Enrico Fermi used it to model atomic neutron diffusion in the 1930s. Stanley Ulam and Johnny von Neumann formalized the tool when developing nuclear fusion algorithms at Las Alamos, New Mexico in the early 1940s. The technology was given the Monte Carlo name because it was a secret World War II project.
It was slowly introduced into the financial and investment community as computers became cheaper and more accessible. Nobel Laureate Bill Sharpe made the tool available to the general public with his Financial Engines website in 1996.
Here is the Link to the website: http://corp.financialengines.com/
Take particular note of the financial institutions that use the Financial Engines toolkit. The extensive listing is literally the honor roll of the investment universe. That is a well recognized accolade for a tool that helps in the decision making process for modeling very uncertain events.
The three major mutual fund houses (Vanguard, Fidelity, t. Rowe Price) all offer a Monte Carlo simulator. Financial business entities all deploy various types of Monte Carlo programs to facilitate and to formalize their decision process. Private Monte Carlo codes are accessible to individual investors from numerous sources. The Monte Carlo simulator is ubiquitous throughout the financial industry for solid reasons. It yields guideposts for uncertain investment decisions.
I have mentioned my favorite “The Flexible Retirement Planner” in earlier postings. Here is the Link to that excellent resource:
http://www.flexibleretirementplanner.com/wp/
I also like “Moneychimp” because of its simplicity. Here is the Link to that tool:
http://moneychimp.com/articles/volatility/montecarlo.htm
If you are not comfortable with pure Monte Carlo codes, you might like a different approach offered by Firecalc. That site uses actual historical returns with structured starting dates to generate a set of equity returns. Here is the Link to that website:
http://www.firecalc.com/
I am constantly amazed at how quickly an investor can explore his retirement possibilities and pitfalls.
To illustrate, I’ll use The Flexible Retirement Planner to explore three retirement dimensions. As a baseline, I’ll postulate a portfolio with a 7.5 % average annual return with a 13 % standard deviation volatility. That’s representative of a 60/40 equity/bond portfolio mix. I’ll assume a 30 year portfolio survival requirement with an initial $40,000 annual drawdown need (these programs adjust for inflation; I selected a constant 3 % level).
First, I’ll postulate initial nest-eggs of $500,000, $750,000, and $1,000,000, all in taxable accounts. For these starting conditions, the Monte Carlo analyses projected survival likelihoods at a disastrous 2 %, an unacceptable 31 %, and a highly risky 68 % rate, respectively. That’s a significant and appalling insight. Retirement is not a good idea.
Second, how much of an improvement can I anticipate if I cutback my annual withdrawal rate to $35,000? Again, for the $500,000, $750,000, and $1,000,000, portfolios, the survival probabilities become 7 %, 50 %, and 81 %, respectively. I’m still not sanguine with these likelihoods. Still too, too risky.
These simulations suggest that I should delay retirement until I acquire a larger nest-egg. How much does a $1,250,000 portfolio enhance the odds? The survival prospects increase to an attractive 94 %. Patience will be rewarded.
Third, s few sensitivity scenarios are worth exploring. For example, what is the deterioration to the 94 % success likelihood if the portfolio only provides a 7.0 % annual return rate? The Monte Carlo code generated a respectable 91 % survival probability. That output suggests some robustness to the plan. What-If scenarios are easily examined on these Monte Carlo tools.
This entire analytical sequence took about 15 minutes to complete. The study is surely not exhaustive, but serves to illustrate the instructive power of these Monte Carlo programs.
Indiscriminately tossing the Monte Carlo codes away as not trustworthy or useful is shortsighted and misguided. These tools certainly can not predict future investment returns; nothing and nobody can. But they do provide guidance and awareness of the risks associated with numerous investment and retirement decisions. In these uncertain environments, Monte Carlo probes can be deployed to estimate the success/failure odds and to discover approaches that can enhance any troublesome odds.
Monte Carlo will do workhorse duty for you if you just give it a test ride.
Your comments are always welcomed.
Best Regards and Merry Christmas.

I'm retired, wife isn't. A financial expert guy lately told me that up to 70% equities would be appropriate. She's just 40 this year. Bonds? Seems to me that holding bonds to any substantial degree is to shoot yourself in the foot. Took an expert to convince me, in person, that my own thinking was not the way to go. (Eventual) Disaster averted, but Opportunity Lost, this year. Still time to make up the ground. There is no deadline on when we stop growing and start taking from portfolio.

What this means is that previously Financial Advisors would establish new accounts on this 'closed' fund if they had other clients in the fund. Now, new clients of Financial Advisors will not be accepted to the RPHYX.

Reply to @Mark: Ha! I know, I love the GE story...but after the nice run up, I've become a bit spooked on valuation compared to other opportunities...surely, my own lack of understanding at work as well.
OK, so. GE has $12 per share cash, but $8 per share "goodwill and other intangibles." Not to mention high debt to equity. But suspect that is somewhat manifestation of financial operation, which like you I want to see them out of...much of it anyway.
Nice 3% dividend with >50% pay-out ratio.
But, declining FCF:

Ditto for operating cash flow.
Cap spending up, good for long run I think in GE's case.
So, just started thinking there may be clearer opportunities right now than GE with more upside in next year or so.
Gotta run to dinner. But let's discuss more.

Not about U S Markets,but the word PANIC has appeared
Time to panic over Brazil? • 4:18 PM From Seeking Alpha
“Brazil’s capital markets appear to be suffering from a sudden flight of capital," says Michael Shaoul, warning of a danger of "abrupt collapse in investor confidence ... Brazil should be watched closely in the days ahead."
The Bovespa slid another 1.75% today, but more alarmingly, the country's 10-year yield spread (vs. the U.S.) shot to its highest level since the summer of 2009.
This morning, Q3 GDP was reported to have contracted by 0.5%, worse than expectations. From Capital Economics: "Brazil is not particularly attractive to foreign firms ... Woefully low domestic savings mean that Brazil relies on attracting foreign capital in order to fund investment projects. But with the current account already in a significant deficit, there is little scope for running up an even larger external deficit to fund investment."
Off 1.3% today, the iShares MSCI Brazil Index ETF (EWZ) is down 20% YTD.
ETFs: EWZ, BRF, BZF, BRXX, EWZS, BRAQ, BRAZ, BZQ, BRAF, UBR, BRZU, FBZ, BRZS, DBBR
http://blogs.barrons.com/emergingmarketsdaily/2013/12/03/are-investors-fleeing-brazil-after-the-q3-gdp-contraction/?source=email_rt_mc_body&app=n
From Ted's Morgan Stanley Letter; Morgan Stanley's Adam Parker
MAKING THE CASE. So can the
market multiple continue to expand?
Three things need to be in place. First,
the dream of higher real interest rates
must remain intact. If investors believe
that the 10-year US Treasury yield can
move to the 3.0%-to-3.5% range
without a material change in inflation,
there is a precedent for a higher
multiple. Second, the Federal Reserve
will have to effectively communicate
that tapering securities purchases is not
tightening monetary policy. Finally, the
probability of the bear case in earnings,
now 20%, must not grow, even if the
base case remains mediocre. 
Oh, brother.
"When I was a whippersnapper in London, many years ago, a grayhair in the City (the financial district) warned me about this. “A bull market doesn’t peak,” he growled at me over lunch in an old, dark tavern, “till the last bear turns bullish.” That, he explained, was the moment of final capitulation — when the final doubters got on board.
After that happened, there was no one left to convert. Share prices then reflected widespread optimism — and the smart money got out. "
From Brett Arends's ROI Archives |
Oct. 29, 2013, 6:03 a.m. ED
From Seeking Alpha
Morgan's Parker unveils S&P 500 target of 2014 in 2014 • 11:31 AM 12/02/2012
Morgan Stanley's Adam Parker completes his turn from one of the Street's most bearish to its most bullish investment strategist with his S&P 500 2014 in 2014 target - an 11.5% advance from here. "The only thing people are worried about is that no one is worried about anything," he says ... "That isn't a real worry."
He's not discounting the chance of a "Pavlovian" sell-off amid taper banter, but says any spring dip as the taper commences will be a buying opportunity "unless our outlook for corporate earnings markedly deteriorates.”
"It isn’t preposterous to say that we could be in an environment of synchronous global economic expansion in 2014, and tapering or not, that isn’t fully in today’s prices.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/12/02/morgan-stanleys-adam-parker-the-most-bullish-strategist-on-wall-street/?mod=yahoo_hs&source=email_rt_mc_body&app=n

It appears the fund paid a dividend at an annual rate around 1.445 % per annum and the fund's NAV increased another $0.08 which approximates a return at an annual rate of 9.458 %. That increased NAV includes mostly accrued interest and possible capital gains that eventually will be paid out to shareholders in cash or additional shares.All accrued interest and cap gains held by the fund are accounted for on a daily basis in the day's end NAV. So if you sell shares on any one day,you will recieve your pro-rated accrued interest/cap gains amount.Most bonds do not pay interest monthly.This makes it difficult for a new fund to "pay " a dividend at months end but that accrued interest is included in the rising NAV.
http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/accrued+interest
A term used to describe an accrual accounting method when interest that is either payable or receivable has been recognized, but not yet paid or received.
From M* 12/02/2013
In October, RiverPark launched its second fixed income fund, the RiverPark Strategic Income Fund (RSIVX - Retail; RSIIX - Institutional), which seeks to deliver high current income and capital appreciation, consistent with conservation of capital. The RiverPark Strategic Income Fund, which takes a “go anywhere” approach, will also seek to remain nimble and because of its small size believes it can purchase securities with above market yields with limited risk if held to maturity.
In its first two months, the fund has gathered $88 million in assets through November 29, 2013, mostly from RiverPark Short Term High Yield fund shareholders. Both the Strategic Income and Short Term High Yield funds are managed by David Sherman of Cohanzick Management.
December Conference Call: David Sherman, RiverPark Strategic Income
We’d be delighted if you’d join us on Monday, December 9th, for a conversation with David Sherman of Cohanzick Asset Management and Morty Schaja, president of the RiverPark funds

Speaking of Andrew Foster and SFGIX, the latest shareholder letter, here, expands on his macro theme concerning the disconnect between the standard EM index and the actual economies of developing countries as they transition away from near-total export dependence. A tease from the letter:
" ... the index represents only 33% of the estimated total capitalization present in the developing world. Perhaps more importantly, the index captures only 30% of the category entitled “Domestic Services + Non-Bank Financial Services + Consumption” – the very category where I believe the greatest structural change is taking place, and which (arguably) represents the future of the developing world."

Hi Guys,
Thank you Ted for the comforting reference. Since it touts very inactive investing and a rejection of the daily business news interpretation chaos, it reinforces a conformation bias that I favor in that arena. Much of what is reported and analyzed to excess is really market noise, especially for longer-term investors.
Solin’s article delivers a softball directly into the wheelhouse of my present investment philosophy. Currently, I review my portfolio five times annually. I check its valuation quarterly and when I’m preparing to complete my IRA minimum mandatory required withdrawal. I’ll be doing that latter task in the next few weeks.
Solin has been a passive Index portfolio advocate for a long time. He writes in a manner that often excites controversy. He is the author of the bestselling series of books that have titles starting with “The Smartest…..” . For example, Solin wrote “The Smartest Investment Book You'll Ever Read: The Proven Way to Beat the "Pros" and Take Control of Your Financial Future”. The book is almost too easy and simple, but it surely does outline his fundamental investment strategy.
But the Solin article is grounded on an analysis generated by Bryan Harris. I am not familiar with Harris or his investment credentials, but since I’m often inclined to search for original sources, I located a likely referenced article on the Internet. It is a fine piece of work that includes some excellent graphs that correlate market price levels with news releases. Here is a Link to a summary article that Harris helped prepare:
http://www.assantefirstavenue.com/index.cfm?PAGEPATH=&ID=47246
I particularly liked this summary statement from the Harris headline research: “These headlines are not offered to explain market returns. Instead, they serve as a reminder that investors should view daily news events from a longer-term perspective, and avoid making investment decisions based solely on the news.” Amen to that observation.
Enjoy, learn, and prosper.
Best Wishes and have a Happy Holiday season.

I can find no credible data indicating any relationship between keeping abreast of financial news and increasing your investment returns. The opposite seems to be true: Paying close attention to the financial information du jour probably contributes to “negative alpha.” The only “increase” I have observed is in the anxiety and stress of those who engage in this practice.

I like this guy!

Another thoughtful offering from Ted: "I remain confused as to why investors are so fixated by financial news."
Let's try to clear the confusion. What passes for financial "news" is often overblown trivia presented in compelling fashion by professional carnival barkers on TV or glitzy writers whose copy-editors have already distorted the original message. Since their ultimate mission is to keep you entertained (and tuned in), they might as well be selling stuffed Teddy Bears (no pun intended) or fake gems. It's pretty hard for the average person to sort out the truly relevant information from the irrelevant. Chances are that by the time we recognize and digest the truly relevant information, it has already been known and discounted by the markets for some time.
On a lighter note ... tuned to CNBC Friday afternoon hoping to get a quick glimpse of closing market numbers. Not go be found. Instead, they were airing a show about classic cars:-)

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-smarter-mutual-fund-investor/2013/11/26/your-biggest-enemy-may-be-financial-news_print.html

From Seeking Alpha
Gundlach: Time to buy interest rate risk
"People are absolutely freaking out about interest-rate risk," says Jeff Gundlach, sitting down with Robert Shiller to size up the investment landscape. Ever the contrarian, Gundlach suggests last year's 1.4% low in the 10-year Treasury yield could still get taken out. The catalyst? "You never know until after the fact; otherwise, it would be priced in the market. But there is no inflation." To see "freaking out" in a picture, check out the price charts of the mortgage REITs, particularly the two proxies for riding the long end of the curve - Annaly (NLY) and American Capital Agency (AGNC). Gundlach: "You can take advantage of pockets of opportunity in what people don't want ... If you're willing to take the interest-rate [risk], you can get yields of 11% in the agency mortgage market."Constructive on housing (but not homebuilders), Gundlach is also bullish on non-agency mortgage paper, calling it the cheapest sector in fixed income on a risk-adjusted basis. Fans of also beaten-up non-agency mREITs like American Capital Mortgage (MTGE), MFA Financial, Dynex (DX), and Two Harbors (TWO) may want to take notice.Mortgage REIT ETFs: REM, MORT, MORLLong-duration Treasury ETFs: TBT, TLT, TMV, TBF, EDV, TTT, TMF, TLH, ZROZ, SBND, DLBS, VGLT, UBT, TLO, LBND, TENZ, TYBS, DLBL
Also A Good Read
Thirdly, monetary policy is being enlisted to try to generate the economic growth that politicians need to meet spending and entitlement pledges made to voters.
"Long term, it's not so much a financial crisis that we face. It's more a political and social crisis because these promises that we have made for ourselves will be broken," King told the BreakingViews conference.
Seen in that light, if the West is in the grip of ‘secular stagnation', as Summers suggested, the welfare state will have to shrink or taxes will have to rise to pay for it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/29/us-economy-global-stagnation-insight-idUSBRE9AS03O20131129

bnath001-
For some of your safe taxable money, you should look at I-bonds. Your money is 100% safe and you also get inflation protection and tax deferral. There are not many investments that can guarantee that. If you have already accumulated a lot of money from your career you may not need much more real growth in capital. Just keeping up with inflation may be good enough.
Since you are a "tech" guy, you should check out the online firm Wealthfront as an alternative to a financial advisor. They only charge 0.25% a year management fee and zero commissions for the underlying ETF trading. Over 10% of Twitter's employees use them to manage the wealth acquired from the recent IPO.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/michael-santoli/twitter-insiders-flock-to-high-tech--low-touch-wealth-advisor-174159109.html
Best,
George..