I recently read an article about a financial advisor giving advice to a wannabe advisor. It may give you some ideas on what to look for in a financial advisor and some questions to ask. About halfway through the article I was reminded of C. S. Lewis' book The Screwtape Letters.
Here's the link: Financial Advisor Advice

I've had family deal with a broker (not a fidelity-type, but a large, independent/private co) and it became very apparent that every fund used was something that "needed to be sold" from high up in the co. While there would occasionally be a good fund that would slip through the cracks, they were all load funds. The advisor/broker wasn't very active and there were times where there'd be an issue with a holding where the family members would have to initiate the call.
They switched to a financial planner in 2008 (right before...) and the planner is fee/performance fee based and it's been a tremendously positive difference. This person is much more active (not overly, but she's earning her fees with terrific active management and pretty much "go anywhere" flexibility (using shorts, alternatives, all manner of stock/fixed income funds.
But I think it's a matter of finding what's right for you. Are you looking to bounce ideas off of, or have someone take a more active role in helping to manage your investments?

While I admit I need a financial advisor, I want to pay by the hour, not by a percentage of my assets. (I don't presume the advisor gets smarter as my assets increase, but I could be wrong). Through my 403b, Fidelity offers advisory services at a percentage rate, which I've ignored, but they also have reps on campus (50 miles away) who offer advice, but I've never spent the gas money). My inherited paranoia prevents objective evaluation. Does anyone have experience that may be helpful?

Reply to @VintageFreak:
As you may note the question you inferred is not the same question I asked. I didn't ask for the correct number or the optimal number. It was a curiousity question (stated in the poll title).
My gut feeling is
people active in mutual fund forums
- have more funds (possibly twice as many as the average fund owner), which can be attributed to the following reasons...
- perceived diversification,
- the latest boutique fund has opened and they want a piece of it.
- more active investing to get a hopeful boost out of a fund that they found out about.
- the more a fund a gets mentioned positively in discussions or has a commentary written about, the more chance a toehold in that fund will be made.
- I am also of the opinion if you do your own selection and self-advise (so to speak), rather than going to an financial advisor, you tend to have more funds on average.
- etc. etc.
I am not saying anything is good or bad, but I would suggest that the average forum reader (and someone who doesn't use a financial advisor for fund picking) has a greater number of funds than the average fund owner (based on no evidence).

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1444822/000119312512400007/d414641d497.htm
AQR FUNDS
Supplement dated September 21, 2012 (“Supplement”)
To the Class I and N Prospectus, dated May 1, 2012 (“Prospectus”),
of the AQR Risk Parity Fund
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the above-dated Prospectus. You may obtain copies of the Fund’s Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information free of charge, upon request, by calling (866) 290-2688, or by writing to AQR Funds, P.O. Box 2248, Denver, CO 80201-2248. Please review this important information carefully.
Effective at the close of business November 16, 2012 (the “Closing Date”), the AQR Risk Parity Fund (the “Fund”) will be closed to new investors, subject to certain exceptions. Existing shareholders of the Fund will be permitted to make additional investments in the Fund and reinvest dividends and capital gains after the Closing Date in any account that held shares of the Fund as of the Closing Date.
Notwithstanding the closing of the Fund, you may open a new account in the Fund (including through an exchange from another AQR Fund) and thereafter reinvest dividends and capital gains in the Fund if you meet the Fund’s eligibility requirements and are:
• A current shareholder of the Fund as of the Closing Date—either (a) in your own name or jointly with another or as trustee for another, or (b) as beneficial owner of shares held in another name opening a (i) new individual account or IRA account in your own name, (ii) trust account, (iii) joint account with another party or (iv) account on behalf of an immediate family member;
• A qualified defined contribution retirement plan that offers the Fund as an investment option as of the Closing Date purchasing shares on behalf of new and existing participants;
• An investor opening a new account at a financial institution and/or financial intermediary firm that (i) has clients currently invested in the Fund and (ii) has been pre-approved by the Adviser to purchase the Fund on behalf of certain of its clients. Investors should contact the firm through which they invest to determine whether new accounts are permitted; or
• A participant in a tax-exempt retirement plan of the Adviser and its affiliates and rollover accounts from those plans, as well as employees of the Adviser and its affiliates, trustees and officers of the Trust and members of their immediate families.
Except as otherwise noted, once an account is closed, additional investments or exchanges from other AQR Funds will not be accepted unless you are one of the investors listed above. Investors may be required to demonstrate eligibility to purchase shares of the Fund before an investment is accepted.
The Fund reserves the right to (i) make additional exceptions that, in its judgment, do not adversely affect the Adviser’s ability to manage the Fund, (ii) reject any investment, including those pursuant to exceptions detailed above, that it believes will adversely affect the Adviser’s ability to manage the Fund, and (iii) close and re-open the Fund to new or existing shareholders at any time.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE

Reply to @CathyG: I think it's unfortunate that the "hedge funds for the masses" push that came out a few years ago has resulted in a few good funds (Marketfield being one of them) and a lot that are either faulty (hampered by the mutual fund structure - see some of the managed futures products, which have essentially been "broken" since 2008 as they continually get whipsawed - yet, many managed futures hedge funds have done at least reasonably well because I think the hedge fund structure allows them the flexibility that the strategy needs) or not very good or, well, or, well, Hussman (who is in a category of his own.)
Hussman's problem is that he has done an extraordinary amount of research (I mean, his weekly letters go into incredible detail, bringing together charts, historic examples, etc - there's clearly research), apparently none of which takes into account the effect of money printing and asset prices. He believes that central banks cannot avoid/buy their way out of recessions/depressions (which is what I believe he said to some effect the other week). That doesn't mean that they aren't going to try (to levels never before seen), and the possible effects of that should be considered. I also continue to not understand HSGFX's strategy versus Hussman's views. The options hedging strategy also seems overly complicated when the fund could be heavily cash, long some staples and low vol names and maybe slight hedging.
My thought is that if there is another crisis, it will look different than 2008. We are not going to have another 2008 where markets fall to that degree (you may have down days, down months, it's not going to be straight up - if it is straight up ... that could be problematic in ways) because you're just going to have more money printing. I mean, look at what happened: I thought we were going to get QE3 into a market decline - we got open-ended QE announced at a market high. The desire - without question - is to create inflation and cheapen the currency. That will help people who own financial assets, who will be able to stay ahead of inflation.
I mean, I can see a scenario where the DOW is at levels no one would have expected in 5 years, but a lot of the problems we face today still linger and things still don't feel good for much of the population, but the people who have financial assets feel at least okay and are to some degree going along. That will not help a lot of the small and large problems that exist, and I can see where it may lead to social unrest eventually.
I think the sad thing is that all I hear is QE, QE, QE. We have no plans for infrastructure, no real plans for education, a congress that can't agree on anything. So, in five years, inflation could result in DOW much higher, but the same aging infrastructure (which will probably cost more to fix - materials and otherwise, given inflation) and a lot of the problems that, had we actually directed some money to (infrastructure being a big one) instead of continually catering to whatever the banks wanted/needed (even years after 2008), could have actually created a lot of good.
Oh well.
However, other countries want to compete in that currency game, too. This makes for an excellent summary of the "Beggar Thy Neighbour" policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggar_thy_neighbour
You're going to have central banks all over the world do "whatever it takes", but I think what's remarkable is that there are structural issues that need to be addressed and that are going to take time to fix, but there is no desire to do that - but you have to attempt to face some of these issues before you begin to get the possibility of a sustainable recovery.
I think this current situation will not end well, but I absolutely think the longer the can is kicked, the worse the end result is.
I definitely agree with mns on treasuries.
Elsewhere, the amount of interventions have become problematic, in that you have a situation where governments launch more and more rumors when something is not to their liking (oil too high? launch a rumor about releasing from the SPR, yadda yadda yadda), which I think is going to only further frustrate investors large and small.

So, those are all valid points. If you buy a fund and you expect it to have a diversified portfolio and its 90% in financial, you should sell. Most people sold later and personally, I don't think most people understood what they were getting into. Not to say that I am never guilty of this, I don't think I understood the strategy when I bought into the fund.
Personally I've spent a lot of time looking at BAC and I own a lot. I'm going to tell you why I own it and why Berkowitz owns it. Its cheep, damn cheep, make you rich cheep. People are afraid of banks and so they don't look at the assest and they don't consider the likelihood the bank will fail for idiosyncratic reasons. Bank of america has a large, rotten, mortgage portfolio. One that is rapidly decreasing in size and that costs it about $1B a quarter. Over the last 12months, BAC made something like $10B. Without the mortgage portfolio, every other section of the bank is profitable, and mortgage portfolio will cost it less over time. It should make something like $12-$15B if rates don't rise and more if they do. Or it could fail if there is Armageddon, even though its capital position is stronger than most big banks. A reasonable valuation, given the risks, is something like $12-$15B market cap, which puts it at something like $12-13 a share. In a perfect world, this is $25 and in a nightmare, its $3-4. I haven't really had the time to look, but AIG looks similarly cheep. Sears is harder to say, because its a real estate play and I'm not capable of evaluating that. Someone that is should be able to make money.
The point of this is, it should matter whether you think my valuation of BAC is a good one. The more important question, is that a good way of making investments, and do you think Bruce Berkowitz is capable of doing that well. That's kinda what he does. To him, concentration is a plus when you have a good enough idea, sector allocation doesn't matter, nor does the direction of the market. Only the difference between what he thinks a company is worth and what it sells for. If that's not what you want, sell, but why would you judge that by any other criteria? Berkowitz expects the strategy to work overtime. If he bought a stock three years ago and he still thinks its cheep he'll buy more. If you have a different expectation of the fund, really any fund, than the manager does, its not going to go well for you.

Reply to @hank: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/investors-nostalgic-logical-markets-boycott-new-centrally-planned-normal
"Question: If interest rates rise, what will typically happen to bond prices? Only 21% of the 2009 FINRA National Financial Capability Study knew that the answer was “They will fall.” The same question to a group of active U.S. military got only a 30% correct response rate. In a 2010 Northwest Mutual survey, only 41% knew the relationship between interest rates and bond prices. This may go part of the way to explaining why fixed income products - mutual funds and exchange traded funds, not to mention individual bonds – still enjoy strong money flows despite record low interest rates. What happens to retail investor confidence in these investments when interest rates rise is, therefore, impossible to know."
I'd be curious how much of retail inflow is to something like emerging market bonds. I'd think it far more likely that the majority of inflows were to things much more vanilla.

A few different views.
One: you have governments that seem to be trying to attempt anything to stop the possibility of recession, which, while not pleasant, is part of the flow of the business cycle. You have a QE program that is open-ended, and could be expanded or altered as time goes on if it does not achieve the desired result. So you can have the possibility that financial assets continue to act one way while the fundamentals (Fedex warning for like, what, the second time this year?) act another. As for shorting, I think people could certainly have success in individual names, but big picture, I question substantially shorting into currency debasement - and that will likely lead to the kind of "one after another" short covering rallies that we've seen over the last couple of years.
There will be dips and down days, but when you have open-ended money printing (or, as I noted in another thread this morning, rather than QE Infinity, I've come up with iQE, which will likely have much more appeal), you want to continue to have exposure to real assets and strong businesses with at least a good portion of your portfolio.
It's difficult to recommend something that will do well in another recession, as it's difficult to get clarity on what may happen or how policy makers will intervene.
Forester Value (FVALX) is an example of a fund that has done a very good job with the difficult task of dialing risk up and down significantly. That is one of the few stock funds that didn't lose in 2008 (I think it was flat?)
Marketfield (MFLDX) is a highly flexible fund that I continue to like and recommend. That fund is global, multi-asset and also has done an excellent job dialing up and down risk, as well as being nimble. It has been bought and I believe it will change next month (?) - shareholders now will be grandfathered in at current terms. That fund will lose if there is another downturn, but likely - given the tools at management's disposal - not a ton (the fund lost in the teens % in 2008, then returned over 30% in 2009.
Pimco Unconstrained (PUBDX) is not going to offer really anymore than the CD (I believe the yield on that fund is around 2%), but is a highly flexible fixed income fund that can go just about anywhere and actually can position from a potential rise in interest rates. That fund is an absolute return fund (and it did do pretty well in 2008) where the attempt is to offer gains in any market environment. There is yield, but it is less a priority.
Pimco All Asset All Authority (PAUDX). Fund-of-funds, terrifically managed by the highly regarded Rob Arnott. Can short with 20% of the fund. Lost single digit % in 2008. Offers a nice yield.
An issue becomes that you are looking for a 4% yield that is "very low risk" - it doesn't really exist - in a world of ZIRP as far as the eye can see, people have bought up fixed income considerably and there's nothing (that I'm aware of) that is going to yield around 4% and not lose at least a fair amount if there's a real downturn.
I wouldn't necessarily run to treasuries, either. It doesn't yield much, but I do continue to like Pimco Unconstrained as sort of an "all weather"/"go anywhere" attempt to have exposure to the bond market, as I think what may be considered "low risk" assets today may not be tomorrow or a year from now, and I think the flexibility is a priority.

Thanks David for the suggestion of PVFIX, Seems like in the league of ARIVX and very likely what I am looking for. Like so far what I read about the fund from your profile on the fund.
One thing that stands out is 58.01% investment in "Financial Services" area as per morningstar snapshot. Will research bit more before start investing in the fund.
Worth repeating, Thanks a lot for this wonderful site and your valuable monthly commentary!!!

Reply to @Old_Joe: It's a little unfortunate (although pretty surprising) though, and really speaks to what I was talking about the other week, regarding financial education as a requirement at the high school level.

Hi....I thought the RPHYX call was excellent ( my connection kept dropping after 30 minutes, but I listened to the call in its entirety through the posted link). It felt like sitting around with friends and family talking investments. I've been participating in various webinars and calls (M*star, Fido, Index Universe and other fund companies) over the last few months, and this call rated #1. I liked the format, the facts and the personalities. David Snowball seems to have uncovered a gem and 'went for it' to spread the word. David Sherman presented the facts of the fund in the context of its mission and the current financial realities clearly and honestly. I took more notes-the info was pertinent- than probably collectively of the last 5 calls/webinars I attended.... and actually felt like David Sherman takes the highest fiduciary standard towards his client, the investor (seeking the sweet spot between best safe yield and doing no harm). Although I'm not recklessly willing to jettison my distrust and disgust towards Wall Street, my trust towards this fund feels solid. I am currently happy with 3-4% in these market conditions, and am grateful for the reassuring conference call. I hope to discuss RPHYX fund specifics more as the conversation continues. Thanks David, David, Morty and the staff behind this. Gary

---The original bailout; past all of the nasties of financial institutions and associated, being their practices and morals, was likely needed to prevent full blown financial chaos, meaning and including, limited access to your electronic investment dollars, which are a series of 1's and 0's residing within a server.
Central bankers, governments all around the globe and companies.....growth, growth, growth.
Is economic growth a substitute for having a happy family and a quality life; full of gotta have it things? Some amount of wealth surely can contribute to an individuals/family opportunities to advance their position in society. The marketing folks, which include more than those at QVC, HSN, Walmart and related, are found happily at their work in many U.S. federal positions, too. The congressional folks are always marketing this or that; and this would include the current actions of the Federal Reserve; and the chairman, more so. And a U.S. president thinks they have power, eh?
So, is the pure mandate of an economy and those involved; to shape policy for, growth at any cost? Has such a model provided much benefit in reducing poverty or adding equality among population groups? While this may seem an "off-the-wall" note related to investing; many of these actions on a large enough scale or as a cumulative cluster of monies always affects people and for we here, the investing cycles. One must consider whether this grand experiment in current monetary policy may indeed, "Burn down the house" in the name of growth and a lower unemployment rate that may have entered a phase of economic cycle that is "now normal". Japan is still working on this model; although most of their debt is internally owned, unlike the U.S. The Federal Reserve and Treasury are working on this, too; and may indeed own most of whatever resembles the U.S. government credit markets, going forward.
The dog, spinning in a never-ending circle, we know; never really may catch it's tail, regardless of the size or speed of the dog. A continued "bark, bark" does not help.
Perhaps the ultimate goal of a central bank, in the developed countries; should be to determine (if this is possible) how much monetary stimulus could help a given economy during times of stress, and merely issue monies, tax free to each and every citizen who is of legal status to that country. Based upon data believed to be correct; during the past 4 years about $3.2 trillion of Fed. Reserve actions have been put in place, against a U.S. population of about 316 million. The math indicates about $10,127 per capita or a family of 4 receiving a little over $40,000 during the last 4 years. Yes, some of this money would be wasted from poor decisions; but much of it would have been spent properly and likely generating income for businesses, who in turn may have hired more folks; and all involved would have paid more in taxes at a federal, state and local level.
Alas and meanwhile; the dog chases it's tail.
Final notes, and not all inclusive; by any means, in no particular order.
--- 1995 brought NAFTA, GATT and the World Trade Organization via a lame duck congressional session.
--- Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Clinton publically declares that Glass-Steagall is no longer relevant.
--- Grant money. Check around your community/state for projects pending or in place; and review how much of the funding monies are in the form of a federal grant. Yes, work is created; and numerous projects are valid, but too many are not. When a community (a true event from about 3 years ago in MI) could not support 10 local and private art "centers", then the local economy has spoken. However, the U.S. district congress person was able to "enable" grants monies to help extend the dying entities. A news story on the same day noted that the local food bank was "empty". Money, not well spent; for the sake of the arts, in my opinion.
--- Silly spenders. Ah, congress and the government. One may not deny that there are those with the truest of hearts and intentions roaming around the streets of D.C. But, they do seem to become derailed in clear thinking, sometimes. I will only note two items. Fuel from corn and/or bio-products is one such area. The cost and benefit, from my knowledge is to the downside. Okay, a new market for corn is in place and some jobs have been created. The downside of the E85 blend is problems with use in older engines of all types (sludge formation, causing numerous problems) and take a look at a new vehicle sticker to find the mileage notation when using an E85 fuel, versus traditional unleaded fuel. Say what, it is lower MPG; can't be. Lastly, and an example that crosses many people and places over very many years and not solely directed at this person; is the "bridge to nowhere in Alaska". Come on D.C. people, why don't you all just act properly? Oh, wait there is more.............I almost forgot about the lobby folks in D.C. Talk about stimulating the economy. Well, at least in D.C., for the restaurants and hotels.
--- FASB.
Hey, let us change the rules for bad assets....cool, let's do it
--- Derivatives.
A few trillion among friends, all is well; don't worry, be happy
But, wait; there's more, the infommercial stated
--- Bernanke, May, 2007.
Mr. Bernanke, FRB speech, May, 2007
Mr. Bernanke statements, May, 2007....."But I believe that, in the long run, markets are better than regulators at allocating credit."
"All that said, given the fundamental factors in place that should support the demand for housing, we believe the effect of the troubles in the subprime sector on the broader housing market will likely be limited, and we do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system. The vast majority of mortgages, including even subprime mortgages, continue to perform well. Past gains in house prices have left most homeowners with significant amounts of home equity, and growth in jobs and incomes should help keep the financial obligations of most households manageable."
--- Fight fire, with fire ? Los Alamos, NM got lucky with a best guess method. Hoping QE's to the Nth power may be as fortunate.
May, 2000
May, 2011
--- Free market capitalism. Ah, words that are uttered by some on the great television tube and in print. There are some folks who do reside in free market capitalism. Those being the reported 30 million nomadic peoples of the planet and those who are in, or moving to the underground/barter economic systems in developed countries. The reminder of peoples are moved and stroked by sometimes perverted and corrupt monetary and political methods.
--- Low interest rate environment. We know the low interest rate environment is face slapping the many who previously relied upon the world of CD's and related money markets to generate some extra income. The side effects, not unlike the medication commercials on tv are too numerous to mention. A few areas of the negative side are: The aforementioned CD/money market downside. Pension funds and insurance companies that have to alter their plans going forward; and moving to the "riskier side" with investments (hedge funds, private equity, etc.) One side effect is that many long standing policies/insurance companies that provided long term health care plans are no longer offering such policies, either to companies for employees or to private citizens, as investment returns can no longer match the growth rate of health care. Hot money moving into whatever, many times being commodities and resulting price increases; whether the price increase should really be driven with pure and natural demand. Two side effects of this are higher prices for the consumer and perhaps lower earnings for companies who at least trail with price increases; and if they do not, their profit margins suffer.
The end results of low interest rates, may be the opposite of any implied benefit.
No, part of this is not a Mr. Bernanke bash. In theory, he fully expects this grand money experiment to have a happy ending; in order, that history may judge him in a favorable position.
And you are correct, you did not volunteer for this experiment either.
Our house wishes all well going forward with the investment pursuit.
I am finished.
Regards,
Catch

Thank you so much for your comments, they're greatly appreciated. I don't really want to share the entire portfolio and haven't, because I think one:) It's really a very eccentric portfolio and has risks that I think are beyond or much beyond what I want to recommend those who are in/near retirement age. 2:) A good deal of it is individual stocks, which I really don't recommend because of risk and some of them are not terribly liquid. The stocks are also more reflecting my themes and interests (some of which aren't themes covered by funds/etfs), which understandably may not be someone else's.
I will, however, share some highlights and lowlights on both sides (stocks and funds.) There are more on both sides - this is just a sample.
Stocks:
* Jardine Matheson. This hasn't done a whole lot this year, but it remains a very long-term holding, as I think it remains a compelling, blue-chip play on Asia. A very large conglomerate, this owns everything from the Mandarin Oriental to 7-11s to real estate to IKEAs to car dealerships to...on and on. The company has been around since the 1800's. I really like the Asian conglomerates, although Jardine is - I think - the most consistent. Hutchsion Whampoa (which is much more global, owning everything from a Canadian oil company to infrastructure to ports to a massive health and beauty chain in Europe and Asia) has some really compelling assets, but I dumped it after it didn't fare that well.
* Glencore (D'oh.) This has been a real disappointment, but I'm not selling - Glencore is like the Goldman Sachs of the commodities world - they have a massive trading operation, combined with a massive amount of assets around the world, including buying Viterra earlier this year and being in the midst of taking over Xstrata, which has been one of the most bizarre M & A situations I've ever seen, even requiring Tony Blair to step in and mediate between Glencore and a Sovereign Wealth Fund who was one of Xstrata's largest shareholders. Thankfully I didn't buy at the IPO last year (whose prospectus was a whopping 600 pages), but still a real downer. I still like the company and particularly like the real assets they own, including - In Australia, Paraguay, Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, Glencore farms 270,000 hectares of owned or leased land. If the merger/takeover/whatever it is today of the rest of Xstrata goes through, that will result in, as a Bloomberg article put it well, "The combined company would be a vertically- integrated commodities giant, with an interest in the production, transportation and trading of everything from the food on consumers’ plates to the metal used for their utensils."
* Brookfield Infrastructure. A highly unique spin-off from parent Brookfield Infrastructure, this owns literal infrastructure - everything from toll roads in Chile to ports in Europe to rail in Australia. This is sort of public version of a private infrastructure fund, and it is opportunistic; what it owns in five years may look very different than what it owns today. This is an MLP though, so it does produce a k-1 at tax time. It does yield around 4.3%. I also like the parent company, but not as much as BIP.
* Singtel (Singapore Telecom) I particularly like Singtel for what it offers - not only does it offer a play on mobile in the region and a nice dividend, but the company owns stakes in several other telcos in the region, giving it exposure to Thailand, Indonesia, India, Australia, Bangladesh and elsewhere. The company also has a new division that is actively seeking start-ups in areas related to mobile/mobile technology, the main one so far being Amobee, a large global mobile advertising firm, which I think is a pretty fascinating little company (http://www.amobee.com/) and could develop into something really sizable down the road as mobile continues to be such an enormous theme.
As for Amobee, I think this article is a particularly interesting read - "Why Mobile Operators Are Becoming Mad Men": http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/17/mobile-mad-men/ (really good discussion on the future of mobile advertising, which has been such a big thing lately, with Facebook's mobile problems and elsewhere.)
I think my interest in the mobile space is not Apple (although Apple will continue to do well), but to think about and find ideas that benefit from the soaring amount and use of smartphones. What do all these phones in the world lead to in terms of new experiences - mobile advertising, mobile payments, etc. etc. etc. In other words, what develops over the next decade in terms of new experiences from having all these mobile phones in existence. In terms of mobile payments, you're seeing Visa and all the other card companies pushing for it and looking to serve the "unbanked" (their term: "financial inclusion" - see below) , especially in developing markets. Telecom companies are realizing that they have to move beyond just offering plans and look for further ways to engage with and deliver information and experiences to customers.
See Visa's "Currency of Progress" channel on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/user/CurrencyofProgress?feature=watch), and incredibly slick mini-documentaries, such as this one focusing on Rwanda -
and this one for Visa's "Vision for the Future":

Finally, "Making Mobile Payments a Reality around the World":

Additionally, Visa (which I don't own, but using it as an example of something that's benefiting from the change in payment tech - discussed here http://seekingalpha.com/article/857581-buy-visa-a-secular-growth-story-of-financial-technology?source=feed) is pushing for change in the US to EMV chip payment cards instead of the familiar strip. This has been done already in other parts of the world, but Visa and it's TIP (Technology Innovation Program) is going to force change - "Second, Visa is requiring that all U.S. merchant acquirers and sub-processors must be able to support chip transactions no later than April 1, 2013. Third, Visa is implementing a liability shift for domestic and cross-border counterfeit POS transactions effective Oct. 15, 2015. This means that the liability for fraudulent transactions made in retail establishments that have not installed chip card terminals will fall to merchant acquirers and merchants." (There are many articles above this, but here's one - http://blog.gemalto.com/blog/2011/08/16/the-payment-times-they-are-a-changing/)
It's kind of stunning to me that there is not an ETF dealing with all of the various aspects of mobile - smartphones, mobile payments, etc. There's an ETF for everything else.
* Graincorp - Stategic/real assets. Graincorp is an Aussie company that owns silos, owns the railroad that takes the grain to the ports and owns the port terminal operations to take the grain elsewhere in the world. The also own malting and edible oils operations. From a Bloomberg aricle: "With GrainCorp owning the silos where farmers dump their harvests, railroad cars that carry loads to east coast ports, and the elevators used to load ships, the deregulation gave the company a “virtual, natural monopoly” on the eastern seaboard, according to Justin Crosby, a policy director at the Sydney- based NSW Farmers’ Association, which represents 10,000 members, half of them grain growers." Volatile, but has a very nice dividend policy of returning between 40 and 60 per cent of net profit after tax to shareholders across the business cycle. That's a very nice dividend currently, and hopefully the dividend can improve/be more consistent as the company diversifies the business further, with the edible oils business being an entirely new addition as of a couple of weeks ago.
Funds:
Alpine Global Infrastructure - Yes, it's expensive. No, Alpine is not a great fund house. This is, however, a solid fund in the category with a very nice dividend. I continue to have a lot of investments in various infrastructure plays.
Marketfield. Really fits in with my desire for funds that are highly flexible, which I think will continue to be of importance over the next decade. I've found some of the new "long-biased" long-short funds quite interesting - Whitebox being another.
RIT Capital Partners. This is a UK investment trust chaired by Jacob Rothschild (RIT = Rothschild Investment Trust) This has not had a particularly good year, either, although I have no questions about continuing to hold, given the fund's mixture of internally managed stocks, external funds, private equity (it recently purchased a considerable stake in the Rockefeller Financial Group - http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/rockefeller-and-rothschild-banking-dynasties-join-forces/) and real assets. It does have an excellent long-term track record. Short-term, not so much, but it is a long-term holding.
EM - MSMLX, MACSX and AZENX. I had Pimco's Multi-Asset EM fund, but boy did it disappoint. I've owned DEM off and on, but a fair amount of EM fund assets went to Jardine.
Ivy Asset - Again, much discussed already.
In the holy (bleep) department - Janus Overseas. Thankfully, only a small position. Added a little bit recently because really, I'm not sure it could get much worse and I'd rather add to an EM/foreign-heavy fund that's done terribly than something that's been doing tremendously well.
Lastly, I had some mild hedges in ultrashort index positions, but have taken those off as of a few days ago.

Reply to @hank: You're obviously an early adapter. Good show. I just completed an additional section for the guide on setting up a poll, but we won't update the UG for at least a week or so to let things settle down.
Voted cautious on your poll.
Regarding the guide, I never thought that I'd be able to contribute anything useful to FA or MFO, since I regard my financial acumen as less than impressive. Nice to be able to repay for the help and guidance I've been getting here for years.
Take care-

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/investors-nostalgic-logical-markets-boycott-new-centrally-planned-normal
"Question: If interest rates rise, what will typically happen to bond prices? Only 21% of the 2009 FINRA National Financial Capability Study knew that the answer was “They will fall.” The same question to a group of active U.S. military got only a 30% correct response rate. In a 2010 Northwest Mutual survey, only 41% knew the relationship between interest rates and bond prices. This may go part of the way to explaining why fixed income products - mutual funds and exchange traded funds, not to mention individual bonds – still enjoy strong money flows despite record low interest rates. What happens to retail investor confidence in these investments when interest rates rise is, therefore, impossible to know."

Err...I'm sorry but this is first paragraph in the page at the url i linked...
By now, you've probably amassed a decent sum in your retirement accounts and another hefty sum in the college fund. You haven't? Join the club. A survey conducted in 2009 by Edward Jones, the financial services firm, showed that 20% of respondents ages 45 to 54 had saved nothing at all for either retirement or college. A recent survey showed that 62% of respondents had never heard of a 529 savings plan, much less contributed to one.
So when you say "About" Edward Jones, I mean the fact that if Edward Jones did it, its meaningful, important, whatever. I don't think Edwards Jones does anything out of the kindness of their heart.
Also I also decided to be lazy on the URL thing. On Friday's I'm allowed ! :-)

TIBIX has a ver long, proven record. They don't do anything flashy with their cash, like the derivatives and other enhancing techniques that many PIMCO funds (including PQIIX).
Yes, the managers of PQIIX did come from Thornburg, but I would not say they were the managers of TIBIX when they were there. They were part of the management TEAM, which was headed by Brian McMahon, who really helped start the fund and still is the lead manager. No question Kinkelaar and Remily are talented, though, and what they learned from Bill Fries and Brian McMahon had to be a tremendous plus when they moved to PIMCO. My view is that Thornburg will probably achieve a higher dividend yield (about 6.3% this year vs. PIMCO at 3-4%) because they do not use derivatives and maintain a pretty low cash position, but PIMCO might have an edge on total return if their "enhancing" strategies play out. Both probably good long-term options, both good management teams. For me, having a fund based in Sata Fe, where there is no noise and little influence from the major financial centers is a good thing. And it is also good to have an option where the PIMCO/Goss juice has not been drunk.

Reply to @fundalarm: Yeah, I mean, there are some on this board who work in financial services who likely went to college with a focus on finance. However, in terms of everyone else, how many people on this board more or less had to teach themselves what they know through experience, trial and error, etc? Suze Orman can (rightly) scream at audiences about the importance of educating themselves and how doing homework regarding investments is not optional, but what if people were forced to learn in high school rather than people having to fit it in later in life? I know older family members/friends who may be great doctors and are terrific at whatever it is they do, but for whatever reason, they have what could be described as a negative interest in educating themselves about investing. They have a broker, or they have a financial planner. I just think even if one has a broker or financial planner, there should be some degree of understanding about what the broker is doing.
I think the financial services industry would be to some degree against it, but I think the market and economic benefits would be considerable over time.

These are indeed good interviews on loans and MBS. What would serve this society right is spelled in Scott's comment somewhere today -- a rudimental financial/ investment education during high school years as part of the core program. Then we all would be better equipped to process the more complex information.