What is your opinion on the fund mixes mentioned in the link below? Over simplistic or not too bad?
MJG suggested looking into these mixes in one of my previous posts and considering my inexperience it seems I may be better off with one of these rather than paying a financial advisor or worse yet rolling dice by selecting funds myself.
I'm not sure why they are all Vanguard funds but the expense ratios are very low and Vanguard seems to have a decent reputation.
Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
http://www.marketwatch.com/lazyportfolio

Thanks as well David, excellent piece. And Bee is spot on with the small investor having limited options.
There is one, worthy investment option, not often discussed here, which does avail itself to many individual, Mom and Pop investors.
The option is to hire a financial services firm, Not a Stock Broker, to serve as your personal investment manager. Fees run about 1% to 1.45%.
Repeat Not A Stock Broker. (I've fired way too many brokers, to me they're generally all the same).
I became frustrated with my own stock and mutual fund selections, as well as my risk adjusted gains as the market rotated away from bonds to mid caps, small caps, market neutrals, perferred, convertibles etc. Then trying to control my own emotions, and foresee future market rotations requires skills I don't have. I've had a little success over the last 40 years, but the enviroment is changing.
Being retired I couldn't afford a major blunder or being wrong every five to seven years
as David points out. I got tired of not sleeping at night, because the ground is shifting.
My Fidelity advisor and I were discussing this fact, and he made a suggestion that I'd never considered. Apparently Fidelity realized there were many of us thinking the same way.
My advisor in Tampa, through a Fidelity screening and interview process, suggested a four major investment firms that operate according to a strict Fidelity standards of practice arrangement.
In my case, four firms that met my guidelines were recommended from around the country. I spent a month interviewing them, and landed on one firm outside my state, but I'll cut that story short. Eye opening to say the least.
In my case the chosen firm manages assets of $40 Billion. The firm and I, after extensive conversations, set up various portfolios for me which are modeled to meet my goals with various timelines, and cash flow models. Highly sophisticated. Highly sophisticated indeed.
They don't use mutual funds.
These firms operate through internal investment committees. They have as many as 60 Certified financil analysists choosing the investments. They don't want my opinion or my emotions or my input. But my client relations advisor there is a CFP.
The firm often will make a change or move every few days. Very transparent and I view all the allocation adjustments on my Fido site. They prove you don't have to take excessive
risk to make money.
Lastly, some of the stocks I owned previously were retained. But the firms buy and sell models are based on analytical formula's.
The firm may like a stock, but it may like it's preferred stock better, or it's convertible better or they may buy puts or calls instead of the individual stock. Few of these strategies I'd ever feel comfortable using on my own, with limited information. But the way they do it, is most interesting. It's active management but not too churning.
Lastly there are a number of these firms who you'd never know even exist, but to whom great fortunes are entrusted.
Good Investing,
Steve

Reply to @David_Snowball:
Thanks David, great comments and so true. Additionally, a smart well disciplined small investor is, as you previously mentioned in another thread, only mildly interesting to the Financial idustry so there is little help out there to orchestrate your discipline and skills. A small investor is up against a system designed to separate them from their principal and profits by offering limited investment options in retirement plans, by gleaning off 1-2% through on going expenses, and assessing trading and early redemption fees.
And most of us thought making money was hard...try making it grow!

Reply to @MJG:
"... active mutual fund management performance persistency ... is significant because it simply does not exist beyond perhaps a momentum-driven one year period."
Hmm ... I'd agree to a point. And, I'd conjecture that a similar lack of consistency might well exist in various market indexes. One including gold and commodities, for example, would display markedly differing performance characteristics over different 20-year periods. (Yes ... over 75-year spans this probably all averages out nicely:-)
What the persistency argument does not fully account for is the size, resources, stability, and investment culture of the sponsoring institution - in this case T. Rowe Price. Though they assign specific portfolio managers to various funds, I've always considered PRWCX - and many of Price's others - to incorporate a "team" approach. Numerous manager changes over the fund's 27-year history have done little to shake the boat. So, what gives? Without their strong competent research capabilities, a culture which recruits, nurtures and promotes managers from within, and the considerable financial resources to carry out these practices, such "persistency" would likely not exist.
They're not perfect. Some of their funds have clearly not excelled, and most tend not to be category leaders in any given year. However, PRWCX, has persistently achieved stellar returns with relatively low risk since its 1986 inception. http://investing.schwab.com/public/schwab_oldpublicsite/research_strategies/mutual_funds/summary/non_schwab/performance.html?&ticker_sym_nm=PRWCX&schwabplan1=&type=#ChartView
There are of course many other reasons to account for the fund's success. Many of these are much more apparent in hindsight and may not be repeated going forward. They include: (1) effective use of bonds during a long, persistent falling rate environment, (2) effective use of alternative investments (convertibles and high-yield securities) to help ride-out periods of extreme equity over-valuation, (3) augmenting large cap investments with mid-caps, (4) strategic allocation changes (shifts among cash, bonds, equities) as markets changed, (5) a conservative strategy that is generally unattractive to market-timers, who can detract from fund returns and increase expenses.
Might you or I have replicated or exceeded the fund's 11.46% annualized return while maintaining a similar low-risk profile since 1986 with our own blend of index funds, cash and bonds? Yes. But, I'd suspect we'd need a MBA or equivalent to pull that off. And, without Price's strong in-house research capabilities, I'm still not certain it would have worked. Thanks for your perspectives. Regards

Reply to @Charles: Don't agree with your four stocks strategy for diversification. Way too risky. What happens in five years when AAPL is no longer the darling? Can't think of any financial company I can buy-and-hold forever, etc.
If there is a single fund to be picked, probably Vanguard Star would be closest, but even that one has flaws. FPACX, after Steve Romick?
Fewer funds are good, but to quote Einstein, "Everything should be made as simple
as possible, but not simpler"

Reply to @Charles: At base, they can count. One retail investor is worth $10,000 in AUM and one financial planner is worth $1,000,000 (or $10M or $30M). Are they trying to game the advisors by making them think they're getting the real inside poop while the hoi polloi have to settle for ads? Maybe.
Fund investing is a game for a group that marketers call "the mass affluent," about 10% of the population representing income percentiles 89 - 98. They have enough money to invest to be interesting to financial services firms ($50k - $250k) but not enough to demand individualized attention. The folks in percentile 99 - 99.5 are rich but not ridiculously so. Doctors, lawyers, successful small business owners - incomes in the $300 - 400k range and investments a bit north of $1M. Hard-working folks, well-educated who still have reason to worry about their future. On whole, worth some considerable personal attention. You don't really get into the Northern Trust crowd until you're above 99.8 where net worth is well over $5M.
Fund companies need the mass affluent and have concluded, rightly I suspect, that the most efficient way to reach them is through planners and other advisors.
I don't at all object to Morningstar doing specialized surveys of such professionals; it makes fine business sense. I'm mostly irked at the shoddy representation at the outset of the survey. I run Augustana's Institutional Review Board, the folks charged to guaranteeing the safety of human research subjects (including those being variously surveyed) and the first rule of protection is informed consent. From the first sentence on, researchers must be open about what exactly they're asking about and how the information's going to be used. If you decide that folks don't need to be told what you're going to do and why until the research is partway complete, your research is DOA.
From our perspective, Morningstar had an ethical obligation to disclose what they were up to so you could make an informed choice about whether to participate. They didn't.
As ever,
David

Hi Golub 1, Hi Guys,
You are perfectly correct in stating that today’s conventional wisdom recommends that 20 to 30 stock positions provide sufficient diversification for the equity portion of a portfolio. Note that conclusion is strictly limited to equity holdings for the US marketplace. In essence, it evolves from the diversification requirement to touch all 10 major investment industries with 2 to 3 core holdings in each to reduce individual entity risk.
A much expanded base is needed to adequately diversify worldwide equities, and fixed income products would further expand the total portfolio.
That’s a huge screening, choosing, and monitoring work load. Not many of us have the time, the patience, or the resources to sort through this likely mess. That’s precisely why mutual funds/ETFs make such sense.
But why 20 to 30 mutual fund holdings?
The popularity and disparity of the replies testifies to the complex nature of individual circumstances, preferences, and biases. I trust that each individual responder truly believes he has made the proper choices given his specific set of circumstances and constraints.
MFO participants are well versed and experienced in financial and investment matters. I would never doubt their thoughtful decisions. But expert knowledge and forecasting are imperfect, especially in the marketplace.
So I listen and learn from this wide expert opinion base, but I always reserve the prerogative to interpret it for my own special purposes. After the infamous Bay of Pigs fiasco, John F. Kennedy remarked: “How could I have been so mistaken as to have trusted the experts”.
In the investment universe, the expert advice and forecasting record from the professional cohort is little better than what an informed amateur can provide. With that cautionary warning, I offer my dollars worth (reflects inflation).
My simple answer is that 20 to 30 fund positions is an unnecessary extravagance in most instances. Rare exceptions do exist. At no time are over 30 funds mandatory, especially for full diversification.
The MFO mob has covered many bases with earlier considerate replies. I agree with most; I disagree with a few. I’ll focus attention on three dimensions, two of which have been partially addressed. The three dimensions are: diversification, wealth, and geography. Yes, geography.
Using only fund products, adequate diversification for an equity/fixed income mixed portfolio can be reasonably secured with 3 fund positions: a US total equity Index fund, a total International Index fund, and a total bond Index fund. The percentages in each category mostly should depend on age and risk tolerance profile. This 3 fund portfolio usually provides about 90 % of all anticipated diversification benefits.
If the portfolio is large enough (the wealth aspects of the problem discussed earlier by John Chisum), the additional 10 % diversification free lunch can be captured by adding REITs, precious metals, small cap, value oriented, and emerging market units to the basic portfolio. These additional 5 elements closely maximize any diversity benefits easily achievable.
The portfolio has now expanded to 8 holdings. Note how this number is very representative of the positions frequently recommended in Lazy-Man portfolio constructions. The Lazy-Man portfolios have proven their mettle and resiliency over long timeframes. An investor could experience, and most do, far poorer performance than that delivered by these accessible standard-bearers.
Now allow me to introduce geography into the discussion. I have long believed that folks on the East coast differ in many ways from those on the West coast and everywhere between the two bookends. Those disparities also penetrate investment perspectives, preferences, and attitudes.
What is true for the general population is equally true for financial and investment professionals alike. Harvard trained economists are not the same as Chicago trained economists are not the same as Stanford graduates. That geographic induced phenomena persists in the investment community. Just visit Fidelity and Dodge and Cox to feel it. I did. It is real.
Even If you somewhat disagree with my geography readings, you might consider doubling down in each of the 8 fund categories already identified to gain some novel or inspired thinking and philosophy benefits. The total number of funds in a portfolio has now escaladed to 16. That’s my top number.
Of course, the 16 individual units are only required if you pursue an active fund investment program. A passive philosophy reverts the total number to the basic 8 holdings.
One closing comment is offered to those investors who hold both funds and individual stocks in their portfolios. You might be inclined to juice annual returns with a few carefully selected stocks. Nothing wrong with that goal, but the behavioral researchers conclude that your odds are bad because of overconfidence, anchoring effects, recentcy bias and a host of other behavioral characteristics that work against you. There were reasons why you abandoned individual holdings.
My thumbs-down to that approach is that you now expose yourself to the same heavy work load that likely prompted you to go the mutual fund/ETF route in the first place. For me, the tradeoffs are not attractive enough and the risk factor is nudged higher.
I hope this helps.
I often am a day late, but I am never a word short.
Best Wishes.

Hi bee. I think FPNIX makes a good turtle...it's also a great owl =).
Here's how it handled recent interest-rate hikes:

Here's how it handled 2008 financial collapse:

Here are the performance/risk numbers:

And, Steven Goldberg likes it! Here's recent thread: A Great Place to Stash Your Cash

David,
Perhaps they are trying to be more useful for Financial advisors etc. or perhaps they have collected enough feedback from average Joe user.

Reply to @Charles: Read this article last night. I don't know, if it's being read by someone who doesn't spend nearly as much time on this subject as we do, I'm kind of impressed with Kiplinger's list. It's much different when giving financial advice to a wide audience regarding an individual's life savings so kind of expect them to be a tad more conservative. However, they do have more information if one wants to dig, and have recommended newer funds from proven managers in the past such as AKREX & DBLTX when it came out.

I'm sorry David. I don't know why we still believe M* and the like actually have the interests of individual investors in mind or actually care about what they think. The other day I was thinking why suddenly Tom Marsico is in Videos on M* after such a long time. I can't help but wonder there is a marketing arrangement and Tom Marsico really needs some "good press". M* didn't have him on the videos to help any investor. It was only to help the fund manager.
What is more jarring to me, to use your words, is when we will finally realize, "clients" whether of M* or Goldman Sachs are "lemmings" and this view is endorsed by the collective interpretation of the financial industry of "capitalism". Or dare I say "objectivism", because that's what I think this is. The view that "what is good for ME is good for others".
As "clients", all we should expect and receive are services for the money we pay and then WE decide whether what we receive is good, bad and use as we deem fit. I don't need to see M* rating to tell me a fund is "good". i can see it easily based on criteria important to ME. M* criteria were not invented to help me. They were invented to help fund industry market their wares. The "Great Owl Rating" is for ME. And let me tell you, this is going to eat into M* revenues big time.
I never opt-in for "help us improve our software" notices from Firefox and Microsoft either because the cynical old bastard I have been developing into over the years, I just KNOW nothing about it is actually going to benefit ME in any way, but will ONLY benefit Firefox or Microsoft. Let's be like them. Ask "WTF is there in it for me" for once.

I got an electronic survey from Morningstar in my inbox this morning:

We are continually looking for ways to improve Morningstar.com. To help us do that, please complete this online survey by Friday, August 16th. The survey should take about 25 to 30 minutes to complete, and is completely confidential. Your insight and feedback are very important to us. Thank you for your help!

Being agreeable, I began working my way through it. I was 11% done, according to the built-in monitor, when I reached a question on the order of "are you an investment advisor or other financial services professional?" When I clicked "no," I was suddenly 100% done.
That's pretty consistent with the results of Nina Eisenman's survey of fund companies about their websites: the vast majority say that financial planners are their audience, and the rest of us are well to peer in as long as we don't get in the way. That makes excellent business sense, but the occasional reminders are still a bit jarring.
As ever,
David

Hi STB65,
Once you have crossed the happy threshold of reasonable portfolio security and survival for your lifetime, you are now free to invest like an institution instead of as a private investor.
Given that comfortable circumstance, your investment time horizon expands from something like 30 years to a more forgiving 60 years and beyond. That change in time scale gives you a longer financial lever = time. And time is critical in the compounding interest and wealth accumulation equation. As Albert Einstein noted “ Compound interest is man’s greatest invention”.
Asset allocation can be adjusted to reflect the very extended time horizon. Since stocks have historically delivered the best rewards over the long haul, you might consider increasing the equity holding percentages in your portfolio. I did. For example, if you normally favor a 60/40 equity/fixed income split, you might want to modify that to a 80/20 mix. The odds are that the more aggressive positioning will substantially increase the end wealth number after a 6 decade holding period.
By the way, I take issue with your forecast that foreign markets will produce superior rewards in the future. Yes we have problems, but we have always faced challenges, and as a nation, we have overcome these hurdles successfully. We respond well to adversity. There is precious little evidence that the world in general does as well as we do. I would certainly take international equity positions, but not to the high degree that you have proposed.
In most instances, your kids will be the beneficiaries of your largess. I would emphasize a continuing financial education for them. I would make sure they became very familiar with the works of the likes of John Bogle, Rick Ferri, and Burton Malkiel. Discuss their investment concepts with your progeny. Our guys are married now, but the education continues. We give each one a subscription to the Wall Street Journal annually. With a continuing financial education, your team can be very knowledgeable and skilled investors when the transition takes place.
Frugality has always been the watchword in our household. I hope it is in your household also. In particular, my wife has been a leader in this dimension. We managed to save even when inflation hit double digits. My wife was a tough financial disciplinary sergeant who demanded that our guys stay within their earnings and allowances at all times. They now practice what she preached. For most folks, being frugal, with an ability to delay satisfaction, leads to success in life and in portfolio management.
I’m sure you are familiar with the behavioral study that tested long term outcomes for children who were exposed to a choice at a young age. One sweet was placed on a table before each subject. The child was told he was welcomed to the one treat immediately. But if he waited until the test conductor returned, he/she would be rewarded with a second treat as well as the original one. Some did; some didn’t. Fifteen years later, the test subjects were assembled and were interviewed to measure their life progression and happiness. Those who delayed satisfaction were far more successful compared to those who demanded immediate satisfaction.
I concur with you and the many contributors to this thread who recognize fund management issues over a six decade timeframe. Team management should do better than an individual star philosophy. The 800-pound gorilla firms (Fidelity, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, American) should do well since they have training and succession plans in place.
However, overall, if your gang is well versed in the investment arena, you can rest easy. They will handle any of your portfolio shortcomings soon after the transition date. Keeping your family fully apprised of the investment game is the essential key.
Best Regards.

Hi David, Hi Charles,
Thank you for your informative responses, your tolerance, and your patience. Your carefully crafted replies clarified the issues and made the exchange worthwhile, at least for me and likely for many other MFO members.
As you clearly identified in this exchange, the “David’s Take” column in the fund rating tables is NOT a buy/sell or direct comparison of expectations relative to a benchmark assessment. I had presumed it was; I was wrong.
David’s focused reply removed my cloudy interpretation. I drew three significant takeaways from his succinct posting: he does a pre-screening, his main criterion is concept attractiveness, and other criteria are conservative in mostly adopting the findings of academic research.
The pre-screening eliminates bad concepts immediately according to David’s judgment and never make the listing. Hence the statistics are truncated and don’t represent the entire new fund universe.
In no way does the assessment attempt to measure a fund’s odds of success. It reflects novel or intriguing concepts that have some chance of success, especially when bolstered by grounded, experienced management and an efficient backroom. He is not predicting success, just the chance for it. It is not a buy recommendation, just a heads-up that the fund warrants further consideration.
Academic research findings are a large part of David’s evaluations. Costs matter, experience matters, Fama-French matters. In many ways, David is echoing John Bogle. I take no exception to these criteria.
There are very few absolutes in the financial wars. Controversy and divergent opinions make the marketplace, and enhance the value and attractiveness of this fine website. I know you expect this, maybe even want it.
On a personal level, thanks for your kindness to me.
My Very Best Wishes.

Cool. I actually think your influence on me about lack of fund performance persistence is one reason I added the return since inception column. I remember at one point suggesting to M* that it should maintain a historical track record of its Picks/Pans. But being M*, of course, the suggestion was never acknowledged and to my knowledge such a compilation has never been published.
I think David's profiles reflect his views on whether a fund's strategy is intriguing, whether the strategy is applied consistently, manager's experience and track-record, manager's financial stake in fund, integrity of fund house, etc. Then, in his eyes, whether it's worthy of our consideration or not. I could be wrong, but suspect he's not calculating, explicitly anyway, probability of outcome.
I suppose we could add an "MJG's Take" column, or a kind of "2nd Opinion" column, but then I think that's what the board is for...and, I find few are bashful about expressing their opinions on the board, fortunately.
Absolutely, your comments and shared experiences on fund performance and selection are always helpful and often profound. Like many of us have noted, your posts are good enough for WSJ.
Take care, Charles

Reply to @Pangolin: For new investor PRPFX gives you a 25% position in metals and gold backed currencies blended with other assets creating a conservative allocation all in one fund. It might be a good place to start. What seems interesting to me is the historical chart of PM funds like USAGX. It seems pretty oversold to me. If it breaks below this trend line than I'll back away, but so far it hasn't.

Going "out on the limb" doesn't need to mean taking a 50% stake in one investment. I agree that if you have a small portfolio slicing and dicing isn't really neccessary or productive. But if say 2-5% of your portfolio equates to thousands of dollars that become a significant number of dollars. For example, a $10,000 investment would equate to 10% of a $100K portfolio. If you invested in USAGX in June, a month later in July you would have gain $2,000 on that $10,000 investment. That's a 20% gain on the investment and impacts your overall portfolio positively by 2%. I would say that is significant. Also, your initial 10% PM allocation is now 12% of your overall portfolio. Rebalancing might be in order.
Successful investing is a process of buying low, dollar cost averaging over time, taking profits, rebalancing long term investments, reducing costs, along with hundreds of other good financial habits. No one thing willl make you wealthy...incorporating most of these habits into your busy life will.

Reply to @Investor:
Thanks...here's the most recent Barclays sector CAPE evaluation paper I could find:
barclays
Also, here is the ETN that Barclay manages using this methodology and the four secrors it holds at the prent time:
etnplus.com/US/7/en/details.app?instrumentId=174066
As of April 2013:
Sector 1 Industrial
Sector 2 Financial
Sector 3 Energy
Sector 4 Health Care

I think Charles analysis is spot on. I would like to venture a guess if anyone can verify. FAIRX performance at beginning of last decade was fueled by EXACTLY the same kind of stocks that gave it stability, but which proved to be its downfall in the latter part of that decade, i.e. "Financials " and "Value" stocks. I think coming out of the tech bust, a lot of Financials were "value stocks". How deceptive.
Regardless of whether I'm right above, just like Yacktman at one point, Berkowitz has stuck to his guns and needs some kudos for that. As people on this board know, I bought this fund for trading since it seemed really down and out and have a nice gain in it. If only Berkowitz stops going on CNBC and/or falling all over Bartiromo, I might even consider keeping it as a long term holding. After all, I'm leaning toward go anywhere funds anyway so this fits the bill, while I keep wondering why M* will not classify FAIRX as a financial sector fund.

Reply to @davidrmoran: Come on...credit where credit is due. You're certainly right about the volatility, but since inception FAIRX has delivered great absolute (and even risk adjusted long term) returns. He's just posted 2Q2013 shareholder letter, which I'm delightfully surprised to see.
And, here's performance plot from Fairholme site:

In the letters, he's obviously relishing BAC and AIG returns. And, trying to call attention to FAIRX's good performance over almost any five-year rolling period. As well as arguing his rationale for Freddie/Fannie holdings and attendant lawsuit.
In FOCIX letter, he acknowledges "MBIA bonds were sold in the period, resulting in an above average return." That's an understatement. While holding Sears and JCP.
In FAAFX update, which is where I'm currently invested with Mr. Berkowitz:

The Fund’s annualized and cumulative performance returns since inception remain below those of the S&P 500 Index for the same period. We believe that the Fund’s portfolio is well-positioned in unique, small-quantity securities of recovering financial institutions to reverse that relative performance difference. Time will tell.

He makes no mention of what I believe was a misplayed holding in MBIA stock.

Reply to @Old_Joe: When you bail companies out and label them "Too Big To Fail" and "Systemically Important Institutions" (A systemically important financial institution (SIFI) is a bank, insurance company, or other financial institution whose failure might trigger a financial crisis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemically_important_financial_institution), then I don't understand why anyone is surprised. Beyond that, their lobbying certainly takes priority to our government over things like actually progressing the economy.
These are like financial oil companies. Only when they have a "spill" and damage the economy, our government caters to them.
"The Wall Street bastards have not been in the least dissuaded from ripping off any and all that is in their power to do so. Those who have "have no problem with unabashed capitalism" should be very happy, indeed."
Lol, we bailed them out and gave them the "systemic risk" card that they can play whenever they get in trouble.
"Eric Holder made this rather startling confession in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, The Hill reports. It could be a key moment in the debate over whether to do something about the size and complexity of our biggest banks, which have only gotten bigger and more systemically important since the financial crisis.
"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy," Holder said, according to The Hill. "And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric-holder-banks-too-big_n_2821741.html
So who are you going to be mad at first: Wall Street or the government who continues to cater to its every need?
___________
As for Visa, I think the issue will be worked out in a manner satisfactory to Visa. I just continue to see a move towards a cashless society in the next decade. Spain banned cash transactions above 2,500EUR last year (http://www.thedailybell.com/3814/Spain-Bans-Cash) and I think many of the reasons they did so appeal to other governments and others. Fee debate aside, I think moving towards cashless benefits retailers in a number of regards.
Square (which Visa has invested in) has allowed anyone, such as someone at an art fair or farmers market, to accept cards. The Apple store has started selling a "Square Stand", which turns an IPad into a complete point-of-sale register.
Eventbrite is an app that people can use to sell tickets to local events and manage everything - from payment acceptance to scanning tickets at the door. Over 120M tickets have been sold via the service. (http://www.eventbrite.com/features/)
As I've said a bunch of times, AT & T has said mobile data demand was up 50% y/o/y. I have my concerns about things big picture, but I do continue to be interested in a number of themes, particularly mobile. Within mobile, there's social, but I think mobile payments and mobile fitness (Nike, others) will rise considerably in coming years.
Beyond that, more and more things will be connected to the internet in the coming years. "The Ford Focus Electric will use the embedded AT&T wireless connection to send and receive data about the car, Ford announced today.
Through the new MyFord Mobile smartphone app, owners will be able to plan trips, monitor their vehicle's state of charge, locate charging stations, remotely lock/unlock doors, use a built-in GPS system to locate the car and receive alerts." (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20046093-48.html)
The US has lagged other countries in terms of adoption of EMV cards and mobile payments, but that will likely change in coming years.
Cash registers will eventually start to go away in some stores in favor of mobile terminals, and the cash register real estate can be freed up for other things. Whole Foods doesn't accept checks anymore and I wouldn't be surprised if other retailers follow. You're going to see cards that have LCD displays and keyboards (http://gizmodo.com/5958721/i-really-want-a-credit-card-with-a-lcd-screen-and-touchscreen-keypad) and you'll see a coupon on an ad, scan it with your phone and both pay and use your coupons with one swipe of the phone at check-out.
Check company Deluxe doesn't even have checks featured on the front of their website, they have things like search optimization and website design. Checks are 59% of the company's revenue (down from 64% in 2009.) Not that the company can't go forward, but saying that they are clearly looking at other avenues for the future - "Marketing and Other Solutions" has gone from 12% in 2009 to 19% last year. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/1536002-get-your-deluxe-stodgy-stock-here)
It's a digital society of digital interactions; it's remarkable to me that Google can come out with a new phone (Moto X) that is "always listening" for commands. What's particularly fascinating is that I have read next-to-no articles that display any concern about the fact that your phone is "always listening" to you.
I don't think things change overnight by any means - there's no way they could. Still, I continue to think we're in the 7th inning of money as we know it.