I'm going off on a bit of a tangent on Financial Advisor scams versus poor Sales practice --- but Financial Advisory issues of all sorts happens with large firms and small firms too. Recent article in Chicago Tribune about a small independent financial advisor who scammed clients and even a client who was a very close family friend for many years.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-12/business/ct-biz-0812-bf-elder-abuse-20120812_1_financial-exploitation-financial-abuse-abuse-cases
***************************************
Elder financial abuse in Illinois on rise
Retiring baby boomers, many with high equity and savings, becoming ripe target for financial predators, officials say
***************************************
Downers Grove retiree Robert Govenat was on the computer every day, watching prices of his stocks go down.
It was November 2007, and a bear market was threatening.
"He was about to have a nervous breakdown or a heart attack," recalls his wife, Jan, a retired third-grade schoolteacher.
Over lunch at a hot dog place in Darien, a longtime friend and financial planner Algird Norkus told Govenat that he had an alternative investment for select people: It would keep the couple's principal safe and pay 13.5 percent annual interest.
Norkus pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud. In March, he began serving 63 months in prison. He also was ordered to pay $4.6 million in restitution to nearly 70 victims, many elderly, including Robert and Jan Govenat, and Robert's mother. His plea agreement said he commingled investors' moneys, in part to make payments to other investors and in part to benefit himself.
"Don't trust anyone," Jan Govenat, 71, said Tuesday when asked what she learned from the experience. "I can't tell you how many times I've said that to friends since this happened." She also regretted not sharing their change in investment strategy with their two adult children.
Robert Govenat, 72, gets choked up discussing what happened with the savings of his mother, now 99 and living in a retirement community. "I'm not proud of what I've done to my mom," he said last week with a quivering voice.
"You were trying to help," his wife replied.
Govenat said he lets few people get close to him, but Norkus was one of them.
"I don't trust anyone now, except my wife," he said.
The couple's two children never bring up the ordeal.
"It's the silent death," Robert said.
The couple, who once felt secure about their retirement years, now worry constantly about finances.
"We don't sleep well," Jan said.
{...}
Robert said he had "blinders" on because Norkus was a friend; he and his wife dined with Norkus and his wife. They went to the wedding of Norkus' son. "He came to our daughter's wedding," Jan recalled. "He didn't go to our son's wedding but he sent a box of Cuban cigars."
Jan said she doesn't blame Robert for trusting Norkus. "Think of someone you've known a long time who you think is a nice person, who you'd trust with anything," Jan said. "That's how we viewed this man."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-pimcos-gross-beats-the-average-bond-fund-2012-09-04?reflink=MW_news_stmp
risks in MM
http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/20120903vanguard-founder-bogle-risks-money-markets.html
RBC Wealth Management
Michael D. Ruccio, AAMS
Senior Vice President -Financial Advisor
25 Hanover Road
Florham Park, NJ 07932-1407
(p) (866) 248-0096
(f) (973) 966-0309
[email protected]
michaelruccio.com
Market Week: September 4, 2012
The Markets
With the exception of the small caps of the Russell 2000, equities continued to slump on low trading volumes. The S&P 500 remained tantalizingly close to its year-to-date high, and the Dow and Nasdaq were only a little over 1% away from hitting theirs. Meanwhile, the Global Dow benefitted from last month's promises that the euro would be preserved at all costs. Oil and gold ended the month higher, helped by a somewhat weaker dollar.
Market/Index 2011 Close Prior Week As of 8/31 Week Change YTD Change
DJIA 12217.56 13157.97 13090.76 -.51% 7.15%
Nasdaq 2605.15 3069.79 3066.96 -.09% 17.73%
S&P 500 1257.60 1411.13 1406.57 -.32% 11.85%
Russell 2000 740.92 809.18 812.09 .36% 9.61%
Global Dow 1801.60 1885.92 1869.92 -.85% 3.79%
Fed. Funds .25% .25% .25% 0 bps 0 bps
10-year Treasuries 1.89% 1.68% 1.57% -11 bps -32 bps
Equities data reflect price changes, not total return.
Last Week's Headlines
The U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 1.7% in the second quarter rather than the 1.5% previously estimated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. That's slightly higher than previously thought, but also slightly lower than Q1's 2%. Corporate after-tax profits were up 1.1% from the previous quarter, and up 3.3% from a year ago.
Consumer spending, which accounts for 70% of the U.S. economy, was up 0.4% in July after falling in June and being flat in May. According to the Commerce Department, it was the biggest increase since February. Unfortunately, the spending increase outpaced gains in income, which rose 0.3% for the third consecutive month. As a result, the savings rate edged downward to 4.2% of income after reaching a year-long high the month before.
June was the second straight month of higher sales prices for new homes; the 2.3% gain in the S&P/Case-Shiller 20-city index, which followed a similar gain in May, left it 6% higher than the recent low seen in March. Though the index is still more than 30% from its 2006 peak, all 20 cities in the index saw increases, which ranged from Charlotte's +1% to Detroit's +6%. Even better, the year-over-year change in the index (+0.5%) was positive for the first time in almost two years.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke defended the Fed's quantitative easing measures and said the Fed is ready to do more if needed. However, he stopped short of promising to supply additional measures at the Federal Open Market Committee's September 13 meeting.
Eye on the Week Ahead
Light summer trading volumes will likely increase as traders begin to position themselves for the end of the quarter. Unemployment data will likely get extra attention because its release date is so close to the next FOMC meeting, and the European Central Bank's September 6 action on interest rates could be of interest.
Key dates and data releases: U.S. manufacturing sector, construction spending (9/4); labor productivity/costs (9/5); U.S. services sector, European Central Bank meeting (9/6); unemployment/payrolls (9/7).

Reply to @scott: Thanks scott, as always. I just downloaded "The Quants" on Audible. Here is summary for others:

Publisher's Summary
In March 2006, the world's richest men sipped champagne in an opulent New York hotel. They were preparing to compete in a poker tournament with ­million-dollar stakes. At the card table that night was Peter Muller, who managed a fabulously successful hedge fund called PDT. With him was Ken Griffin, who was the tough-as-nails head of Citadel Investment Group. There, too, were Cliff Asness, the sharp-tongued, mercurial founder of the hedge fund AQR Capital Management, and Boaz Weinstein, chess "life master" and king of the credit-default swap.
Muller, Griffin, Asness, and Weinstein were among the best and brightest of a new breed, the quants. Over the past 20 years, this species of math whiz had usurped the testosterone-fueled, kill-or-be-killed risk takers who'd long been the alpha males of the world's largest casino. The quants believed that a cocktail of differential calculus, quantum physics, and advanced geometry held the key to reaping riches from the financial markets. And they helped create a digitized money-trading machine that could shift billions around the globe with the click of a mouse. Few realized that night, though, that in creating this extraordinary system, men like Muller, Griffin, Asness, and Weinstein had sown the seeds for history's greatest financial disaster.
©2010 Scott Patterson, Random House

Family were going to a broker at a large (not national, but large) firm and it became apparent that - long story short - it wasn't about them, it was about selling. They went to a terrific financial planner at a small, independent firm and they could not be more thrilled - the difference in how involved they are, products, etc - is immense. I think you're going to see more people leave these sort of firms in the near future.

Reply to @kevindow: Don't agree with some of the stuff mentioned, but not going to really get into it. I will agree that much of the alternative retail product is hampered (see RYMFX, which I continue to use as an example*) just by the mutual fund structure (or just not good), that doesn't mean many haven't been incredibly successful with long-short investing or various other alternative strategies. A number of new long/short funds that have greater flexibility as to dialing up/down risk rather than being stricter about the long-short mandate seem promising.
As noted in MFO's review of Marketfield (which I've decided to add to), "A great deal of the decision to invest in Marketfield comes down to an almost religious faith in the manager’s ability to see what others miss or to exploit opportunities that they don’t have the nerve or mandate to pursue. " (Um, couldn't one say that about many long-only managers, like a certain financial-heavy one that seems to have a near-religious following? Just sayin'.)
*As for RYMFX, you have a managed futures fund whose positions long/short commodities and currencies are updated once a month, which is a recipe for the fund to get whipsawed again and again. It worked in 2008 to the tune of 8% when the trend was straight down, but hasn't worked since. Managed futures is a strategy that many hedge funds have been quite successful with - but I just think a once a month adjustment just doesn't work in today's markets, and the fund appears broken for the meantime as it can't really manage to follow short term trends in the markets it follows. I noticed today that the fund is now described as following "medium term" trends, and I don't think that description was there before (and it's not really doing that, either.)
Additionally, a favorite (not in a good way, but sort of an "Alternative Investing Goes Wrong" example) bizarre alternative fund is Federated Absolute Return (FMAAX), which was renamed and had a manager change and has had one positive year (a gain of under 2% last year) in the last 5.
It's not that managed futures as a strategy doesn't work, but I continue to question whether it works well in a mutual fund format. Some alternative funds just haven't been very good, or - I think - are too strict with the long/short mandate.
There's instances where complexity works, and there's instances where complexity does not, and Hussman - who would have been better off not being 65% long (and completely hedged against it or nearly so) and instead just having a portfolio of staples and the like and cash and light hedging. I can understand a manager liking this (long) and not that (short), but I just don't understand Hussman's positioning versus his views - and I would be curious what the AUM is now vs 5 years ago.
Some alternative funds are just gone (NARFX, I think Janus' long/short fund is no longer?, there are a number of others), but a number have done pretty well this year, including the new Riverpark fund.
Anyway, I do continue to like BIP (although over the long-term that is certainly not without patches of volatility - but since everyone is now desperate for yield, it has been more low-key on average and has at times gone up when the market has gone down and been nicely uncorrelated), the AQR fund (although I'm actually starting to be a little curious as to how the high volatility/low volatility versions will perform when they come out) and Arnott's fund is certainly consistent. I like the Principal fund, but no longer own it.

Got email back from Andrew Foster:
======================
Greetings from São Paulo. Thanks for your email.
Regarding the firm's assets under management: at present, Seafarer manages only one public fund. The firm is not registered with the SEC to manage any other type of financial product.
Regarding "survivability": I am not certain I can address the entirety of your question, because it has several facets to it -- but I'll try. From my perspective, the firm has only recently started; it’s growing nicely, especially relative to our own (conservative) forecasts; and we are excited about the future.
We are fortunate to enjoy the freedom to build our business carefully, over time. Meanwhile, we have structured the firm so that it is flexible, efficient, and so that has the resources we need to get our job done.
Unlike the ETF situation you cited, I don't have any financial "pressures" weighing on me -- i.e., I don't have to struggle with an institutional shareholder that might push the firm to grow to a particular scale, achieve certain margins, or face closure.
We look forward to a day when the firm's assets achieve greater scale, so that we can pass on some of the resulting economies to clients. But right now, we are pleased with what we have achieved. I chose to launch the firm, rather than pursue a career at an established entity, because I love what I do: I wanted to build something new, from scratch, and guide its steady progress. I plan to be here, with Seafarer, for a long time to come.
I hope this addresses your question?
Thanks again for your interest, and best regards,
Andrew

Reply to @romroc: Seriously, yes, Kansas City Southern may well be all that you need to know in the world of investing, if you had to pick just one. Warren Buffett certainly feels that there are bright days ahead for the US railway industry. And also yes, Apple is currently "a rather good one to own", but "currently" is the gotcha word there.
Mr. Buffett has said that he always prefers companies that have a financial "moat" which will help to protect them from outside attacks. In the case of railroads, the moat is the difficulty that a would-be competitor would have in throwing up a new set of tracks right next to yours, and then undercutting you by using the latest in atomic-powered locomotives.
Apple too is attempting to build a moat, as shown by the lawsuit against Samsung which they have just won. Actually, Samsung was merely a stalking-horse for Google, and the Android operating system. The problem with any tech stock, though, is that moats are notoriously difficult to maintain. It's going to be a lot easier to make iPhones and iPads obsolete than to do the same to those huge locomotives and freight cars.
In a final note, MXXVX used to be a really big number- a lot more than 63- but with inflation, oil prices, going off the gold standard, and all those stupid housing loans...
Regards- OJ

MFG is Magellan Financial Group...if you look at their website, you would think that they are the second coming based off of some of quotes they flash on the screen. Fund has not been around long but perfornace is solid and it is a more focused fund (which interests me)....heavily tilted to the US despite being a global fund, and expenses have been waived down to .80%. FMGEX is availabe at Fido for $2,500 but with transaction fee for IRAs. I am looking for a good global growth fund....although it might not be as necessary since I also have ARTGX and I am beginning to see that as more of a GAARP fund....Thoughts?
Frontegra has also partnered with MFG for the Frontegra MFG Infrastructure fund FMGIX...

Reply to @scott:
Hi Scott,
Thanks for your thoughtful and thought provoking reply. It expanded both the thinking and opinion horizons on the topic. Great stuff.
We both see the gathering Hedge fund dynasties in much the same light. I agree Hedge fund managers are very likely smarter than Mutual fund managers. Hedge funds draw their cadre from the superior performing mutual fund management pool. However, successful financial wizards often fall victim to excessive ego trips caused by an overestimation of skill sets and an underestimation of the luck contribution to their performance story.
There is little doubt that Hedge funds have prospered recently as their numbers and their increasing wealth accumulation have been nothing short of phenomenal. However, it is not clear if that wealth accumulation has filtered down to the private investor level.
The financial sector is populated by plenty of smart folks. But smart people do not always produce superior outcomes. Many books have been produced that fully document that observation.
Simon Lack has generated a scathing book of hedge fund failures in his “The Hedge Fund Mirage”. He observes, with a distortion of Sir Winston Churchill’s famous World War II remark, that “Never in the field of human finance was so much charged by so many for so little”.
The books opening, eye-popping statistic reveals that if all the money ever invested in hedge funds had instead been safely placed in US Treasury Bills, the returns would have been double those delivered by the inventive and the undisciplined Hedge fund army. The industry does have a few outstanding exemplars; their impact is severely diluted by the more numerous miscreants and copycats.
I’m thinking now of the likes of John Merriwether’s LTCM over-leveraged demise, of Amaranth Advisors highly publized 2006 failure, and of course, of Bernie Madoff’s malfeasance and disgrace.
A few papers on the Hedge fund industry highlight this aspect from several perspectives, both supportive and otherwise. On an anecdotal basis, the Hedge fund record, at least that fraction of it that the average investor has access to, is littered with startling survival dropouts and shocking return disparities.
Immediately following are two distinguished references that take opposite sides of the Hedge fund risk-reward controversy. The first is coauthored by Burton Malkiel of “Random Walk Down Wall Street” fame; the second is by a less well known authority, George Van from Van HF Advisors International who wrote that the Malkiel-Saha paper was deeply flawed.
A Link to a summary the Malkiel-Saha paper by the authors themselves follows:
http://www.frbatlanta.org/news/conferen/06fmc/06fmc_malkiel.pdf
The Link to Van’s paper is:
http://www.intelligenthedgefundinvesting.com/pubs/rb-gvzs.pdf
Note that both references were generated by vested interests and are likely to have views that are shaped by a divergent set of financial incentives. A basic understanding of the motivations underpinning any source is critical when assessing the merits and shortcomings of the position advocated.
A more balanced, and perhaps less biased study was reported by Morningstar. The work was headed by Roger Ibbotson and is titled “The ABCs of Hedge Funds”. It includes data through 2009. Here is the Link to the paper:
http://corporate.morningstar.com/ib/documents/MethodologyDocuments/IBBAssociates/ABCHedgeFundReturns.pdf
The paper shows that “results indicate that both survivorship and backfill biases are potentially serious problems. Adjusting for these biases brings the net return from 14.88% to 7.70% for the equally weighted sample.”
This is yet another buyer beware cautionary signal. You get to choose your own poison. The debate and the controversy, even about the data sources, rage with spirited interchanges.
George Soros surely demonstrated the Midas Touch with his currency genius, gambles, and attacks. In 1992, Soros's Quantum Fund became famous for "breaking" the Bank of England, forcing it to devalue the pound. The Quantum fund is no longer available to outsiders, but had a sterling record under the leadership of Soros, Jim Rodgers, and Stanley Druckenmiller. It’s funny to recollect that I once tried to become a client, but didn’t satisfy their high net worth standards.
Consider Julian Robertson, his Tiger fund, and his long-short investment strategy. It worked until it stopped working. He closed his Tiger fund in 2000, but is still an active player by providing seed money to promising Hedge fund manager candidates. He is a brilliant investor as are Myron Scholes and Robert Merton, Noble Laureates, whose analytical models contributed to the LTCM problem.
The risks for a small investor is the potential for massive losses. The potential upside is extremely limited when considering the long term persistency requirements of most investors, and the eroding effects caused by high annual fees,
The huge disparity of Hedge fund historical performance among its numerous categories is still another cause for caution.
Hedge funds have a checkered record, even under the watchful scrutiny of institutional agencies like Harvard, Princeton, and Yale. The managers of these endowments split their resources between conservative Index holdings and far more aggressive Hedge fund operators. If these super-investors can not make a definitive decision, it is a daunting challenge for even a knowledgeable private investor. If selecting an active mutual fund manager is like walking through a briar-patch, deciding on a Hedge fund manager must be like choosing a pathway through a minefield.
The diverse categories that populate the Hedge fund industry add to the confusion and uncertainty. Performance differences between these categories are huge and unstable over even intermediate timeframes. The rewards are there, but so is the risk, especially for an individual investor who is typically denied access to the truly superior Hedge fund managers. These guys are few, and their best interests are served by seeking institutional clients. You know who they primarily serve.
From my perspective, the Hedge fund waters are too murky for the individual investor. The reporting is spotty and the regulations are too thin. Navigating these less well charted choppy waters is too demanding a sailing chore given the uncertain risk-reward tradeoffs.
Thanks again for your fine submittal.
Best Wishes.

One big problem I have encountered with purchasing advisor class funds over retail or institutional funds is that once the financial intermediary realizes you are not an advisor, they cease allowing to purchase additional shares (i.e. TGBAX or TTRZX) and they will probably put a "hold" on your account for any additional purchases of WBMRX.
Also, WBMAX has a 4.5% load per the prospectus.
Here is link to prospectus:
http://www.whiteboxmutualfunds.com/content/assets/docs/Whitebox_Prospectus.pdf
From the prospectus:
Shareholder Fees (fees paid directly from your investment): Invstr Advisor Institutional
Maximum Sales Charge (Load) Imposed on Purchases (as a
percentage of offering price) ............................................. 4.50% None None
Maximum Deferred Sales Charge (Load) (as a percentage
of offering price or redemption proceeds, whichever is
lower) ................................................................................ 1.00% None None
Redemption Fee (as a percentage of amount redeemed
within 60 days of purchase) ............................................... 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%
Annual Fund Operating Expenses (expenses that you pay
each year as a percentage of the value of your investment):
Management Fee ................................................................ 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%
Service (12b-1) Fee ............................................................ 0.25% 0.25% None
Other Expenses1 ................................................................ 0.46% 0.46% 0.46%
Total annual fund operating expenses ............................... 1.71% 1.71% 1.46%
Less: Contractual fee and expense waivers2 ...................... 0.11% 0.11% 0.11%
Net annual fund operating expenses ............................... . 1.60% 1.60% 1.35%
1

Reply to @catch22: lol talking about "bailouts" and "not creating moral hazard" after the last few years loaded with bailouts and creating moral hazard in the financial system. Hilarious. We're a little far down the path of trying to bail everything out, sorry Ryomney (yeah, that's the combination name I came up with.) You have a financial system that is largely concerned with nothing beyond whether or not another round of QE is coming.
Anyone who thinks that Romney and Ryan will not continue to do the same bailouts and easy monetary policy tactics if faced with the decision ... at least is going to totally expect it when they do, versus being totally disappointed by someone they'd hoped would actually have done any of the things they said they would, like, you know, make some difficult decisions how to fix structural economic issues. Stuff like that. Additionally, while Romney has been negative on Bernanke, his economic advisor hinted the other day that maybe keeping Bernanke around might not be such a bad idea.
As for munis, people seem to reallly want to like them and seem awfully defensive whenever someone talks the slightest bit negatively about them....

Note only that but numerous Analysts have left too.
From M*
=====
Doug Rao, manager of Marsico Flexible Capital (MFCFX) and comanager of flagship funds Marsico Growth (MGRIX) and Marsico Focus (MFOCX), is leaving Marsico Capital Management on July 20, 2012. His is the latest in a series of departures from the firm over the last two years. Jordan Laycob and Munish Malhotra, who've been at the firm since 1997 and 2004, respectively, will comanage Flexible Capital. Firm founder Tom Marsico remains lead manager and Coralie Witter comanager on Growth and Focus. Joshua Rubin, a comanager on Marsico Emerging Markets (MERGX), also announced he was departing.
Rao joined Marsico Capital Management in 2005 and moved up the ranks quickly, taking over as manager of Flexible Capital in 2007. He made ample use of that fund's go-anywhere mandate, holding roughly 20% in cash in 2008 and one third of assets in non-United States stocks, including some emerging-markets picks, in 2009. Such moves helped fuel the fund's dazzling gains compared with its large-growth peers--as well as the world allocation category average--during his five-year tenure. Following Cory Gilchrist's departure last fall, Rao was the firm's most experienced U.S. equity manager after Marsico.
Rao's successors are less experienced. Laycob has been a Marsico analyst since 1997 and the firm's sole fixed-income specialist, but he's never run a fund before. Malhotra has been a comanager of the $5 million Marsico Emerging Markets fund since its late 2010 inception, but that fund has lagged its diversified emerging-markets peers and the MSCI Emerging Markets Index since its birth and it has seen a lot of manager turnover. Rubin, who had been a manager on Marsico Emerging Markets since 2010, resigned just two months after comanager Charlie Wilson left the firm.
Turnover has also struck the analyst team. Seven team members who joined between 2003 and 2008 have left since 2010. Five new analysts came on board since last year, but only one had previous investment experience. The firm's troubles attracting and retaining talented investors coincides with financial woes. Marsico bought his firm back from Bank of America (BAC) in a highly leveraged deal in 2007, just before the 2008 market meltdown and investor outflows depleted the firm's asset base. As a result, the company restructured its debt in 2010. The firm's inability to retain and attract experienced investors has undermined investor confidence. Indeed, the firm is on pace for its fourth straight calendar year of significant outflows. Since 2008 through the end of June 2012 the firm has seen more than $5 billion leave its mutual funds and has lost outside subadvisory deals. Recently, John Hancock fired Marsico as the subadvisor for John Hancock Funds II International Opportunities (JIIOX), citing disappointing performance. John Hancock has hired a team at Invesco led by Clas Olsson to replace Marsico and eventually plans to merge the fund into John Hancock Funds II International Growth Stock (JGSNX), which Olsson and his team have managed since 2010.

BobC,
Very true indeed. I will add that during our last financial crisis ( current?) many companies learned to run lean. This has helped corporate profits at the expense of the unemployed,,etc. It could be said that many corporations discovered Dave Ramsey's book ... "Total Money Makeover" .

Reply to @hank: The Gross comment came from the Pimco twitter. I'd guess if nothing was announced at Jackson Hole, then the next likely possibility would not be until after the 1st of the year.
Additionally, as for Pimco otherwise: "Three of Pimco's portfolio managers, including the head of the commodities group Mihir Worah and Mr. Johnson, have been on a 17-city U.S. tour since June to raise awareness among institutional investors and larger financial advisers.
Their message: the trifecta of loose monetary policy, persistently high levels of sovereign debt and rising commodity prices will drive inflation higher.
Pimco expects currency devaluation to remain a central theme in the market as global liquidity swells thanks to continued easy-money efforts from the world's central banks. Interest rates, meanwhile, will need to stay low as government debt runs at a high proportion to the overall economy.
"Gold is the currency without a printing press," Mr. Johnson says."
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/08/22/pimco-adds-to-gold-holdings-on-inflation-concerns/
---
Lastly, this: "Many FOMC participants saw new QE as bolstering US economy."
...is a delightful example of Einstein's theory of insanity.

Reply to @hank: How cynical of you. Surely the financial wise-men have the interest of the average American near and dear to their every action. I am appalled that you have evidently lost faith in the American System. Be advised that your name will be included on my next undercover report to MJG listing those who have forfeited their right to be considered true-blue (or maybe true-red?) Americans.

Thanks Kevin. Gotta tell ya, I like it when an investment manager puts reputation on the line...puts themselves out there. Especially sweet when I agree, as in case of Redleaf, and Berkowitz of course.
Ditto for financial reporters. For example, Morningstar's Bob Johnson, Kiplinger's Steven Goldberg, and InvesTech's newsletter publisher James Stack.

Reply to @scott: Hi- wasn't really commenting upon Hussman so much as recalling the pain of 07/08. 2% would have been great!
Have to say I'm really wondering about our wonderful new market tops also. Ready to correct or respond to the next new financial disaster?

Very good advice; about the only thing left is to advise you to not buy a boat.
Regarding selection of a financial advisor, I have found the following article of interest:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/07/checklist-of-errors/

Howdy,
A thank you to all who post the links, start and participate in the many fine commentaries woven into the message threads.
For those who don't know; I ramble away about this and that, at least once each week.
NOTE: For those who visit MFO, this portfolio is designed for retirement, capital preservation and to stay ahead of inflation creep. This is not a buy and hold portfolio, and is subject to change on any given day; based upon perceptions of market directions. All assets in this portfolio are in tax-sheltered accounts; and any fund distributions are reinvested in the funds. Gains or losses are computed from actual account values.
While looking around..... Is this "As Good As It Gets" for bonds going forward? For some bond sectors, perhaps.Flip a coin, eh? Goldman Sachs (GS) noted in early 2010 that the 10 year note was going to a 5.5% yield and later kinda apologized for that notation. Course, "As Good As It Gets" applies to all investment sectors, too. Are some equities overbought? I sure don't know, but a likely guess would be, yes. GS has a year end number on the SP-500 at 1250. Should I trust that number any more that the other 100 market fortune tellers spouting any day of the week?
I suppose the best two words I read recently about the markets were "we are defensively bullish". Okay, how about "optimistically bearish", too. Perhaps this house just needs to select a broad base of the100 best funds or etf's, set the tickers upon a large sheet of paper, stand back 15 feet and let rip with 12 darts. Done and finished.
Per David Rosenberg, July 27, 2012........
*****Markets were thrilled yesterday when European Central Bank president Mario Draghi said he would "do whatever it takes to preserve the euro. And believe me, it will be enough".
But Gluskin Sheff economist David Rosenberg said these were Draghi's famous last words, much like when Hank Paulson had said in August 2008, "If you have a bazooka in your pocket and people know it, you probably won't have to use it."
Or when Ben Bernanke said in June 2008, "the financial crisis appears to be mostly behind us, and the economy seems to have stabilized and is expanding again."
Rosenberg said Draghi's words were pure rhetoric and he called Draghi a "leader of NATO - No Action, Talk Only - instead of a central bank".
Draghi's comments were widely interpreted as a return to the Securities Markets Program (SMP) which involves purchases of Italian and Spanish bonds. But Rosenberg said if this was in fact costless it would have been activated already.
He also poured cold water on talk about granting the European Stability Mechanism a banking license. "Frankly, this is likely to be a political decision in the end, which is beyond the purview of the central bank." And said a third LTRO (long-term refinancing operation) would do nothing more than buy some time.
Rosenberg argued that the underlying problem of Europe's sovereign and banking sector would ultimately hinge on its fiscal and regulatory policy and that there isn't much Draghi can do about it. *****
Personal note to the above: Mr. Draghi only mentioned saving the "euro"; nothing about saving any countries. Perhaps the "euro" will remain only in Belgium, the home of the ECB; into the future.
The data/numbers below have been updated.
As to sector rotations below (Fidelity funds); for the past week: (Note: any given fund in any of these sectors will have varing degrees of performance based upon where the manager(s) choose to be invested and will not directly reflect upon your particular fund holdings from other vendors.)
--- U.S. equity + .3% through + 2.4%, avg. = + 1.5% YTD = +13.8%
--- Int'l equity - 2% through + 1.6%, avg. = + .4% YTD = +9.2%
--- Fido Select. sectors - .8% through + 3.8%, avg. = + 1.3% YTD = +13%
--- U.S./Int'l bonds - 2.9% through + .12%, avg. = -.70% YTD = + 2.2%
--- HY bonds - .52% through + 0%, avg. = - .2% YTD = + 8.8%
An Overview, M* 1 Week through 5 Year, Multiple Indexes
I have added a few blips related to our portfolio and market observations at the below SELLs/BUYs and Portfolio Thoughts.
SELLs/BUYs THIS PAST WEEK:
NONE
Portfolio Thoughts:
Our holdings had a - .59 % move this past week. We'll stay where we are at for today; to find what the new week and perhaps the end of the month with Mr. Bernanke brings to the plate.
Sidenote: The average return of 200 combined Fidelity retail funds across all sectors (week avg = + .63%, YTD + 10.3%). I will retain the below write from previous weeks; as what we are watching still applies.
--- commodity pricing, especially the energy and base materials areas; copper and related.
--- the $US broad basket value, and in particular against the Euro and Aussie dollar (EU zone and China/Asia uncertainties).
--- price directions of U.S. treasury's, German bunds, U.K. gilts, Japanese bonds; and continued monitoring of Spanish/Italian bond pricing/yield.
--- what we are watching to help understand the money flows: SHY, IEF, TLT, TIP, STPZ, LTPZ, LQD, EMB, HYG, IWM, IYT & VWO; all of which offer insights reflected from the big traders as to the quality/risk, or lack of quality/risk; in various bond sectors.
I have retained the following links for those who may choose to do their own holdings comparison against the fund types noted.
The first two links to Bloomberg are for their list of balanced/flexible funds; although I don't always agree with the placement of fund styles in their categories.
Bloomberg Balanced
Bloomberg Flexible
These next two links are for conservative and moderate fund leaders YTD, per MSN.
Conservative Allocation
Moderate Allocation
A reflection upon the links above; we attempt to establish a "benchmark" for our portfolio to help us "see" how our funds are performing. Aside from viewing many funds within the balanced/flexible funds rankings (the above links), a quick and dirty group of 5 funds (below) we watch for psuedo benchmarking are the following:
***Note: these week/YTD's per M*
VWINX .... - .41% week, YTD = + 7.67%
PRPFX .... - .02% week, YTD = + 3.32%
SIRRX ..... - .13 % week, YTD = + 4.67%
TRRFX .... + .25% week, YTD = + 8.05%
VTENX ... + 0% week, YTD = + 7.13%
Such are the numerous battles with investments attempting to capture a decent return and minimize the risk.
We live and invest in interesting times, eh? Hey, I probably forgot something; and hopefully the words make some sense. Comments and questions always welcomed.
Good fortune to you, yours and the investments.
Take care,
Catch
---Below is what M* x-ray has attempted to sort for our portfolio, as of June 1, 2012---
From what I find, M* has a difficult time sorting out the holdings with bond funds.
U.S./Foreign Stocks 1.9%
Bonds 93.9% ***
Other 4.2%
Not Classified 0.00%
Avg yield = 3.72%
Avg expense = .55%
***about 16% of the bond total are high yield category (equity related cousins)
---This % listing is kinda generic, by fund "name"; which doesn't always imply the holdings, eh?
-Investment grade bond funds 28.2%
-Diversified bond funds 22.4%
-HY/HI bond funds 14.5%
-Total bond funds 32.4%
-Foreign EM/debt bond funds .6%
-U.S./Int'l equity/speciality funds 1.9%
This is our current list: (NOTE: I have added a speciality grouping below for a few of fund types)
---High Yield/High Income Bond funds
FAGIX Fid Capital & Income
SPHIX Fid High Income
FHIIX.LW Fed High Income
DIHYX TransAmerica HY
---Total Bond funds
FTBFX Fid Total
PTTRX Pimco Total
---Investment Grade Bonds
ACITX Amer. Cent. TIPS Bond
DGCIX Delaware Corp. Bd
FBNDX Fid Invest Grade
FINPX Fidelity TIPS Bond
OPBYX Oppenheimer Core Bond
---Global/Diversified Bonds
FSICX Fid Strategic Income
FNMIX Fid New Markets
DPFFX Delaware Diversified
LSBDX Loomis Sayles
PONDX Pimco Income fund (steroid version)
PLDDX Pimco Low Duration (domestic/foreign)
---Speciality Funds (sectors or mixed allocation)
FRIFX Fidelity Real Estate Income (bond/equity mix)
---Equity-Domestic/Foreign
NONE outright, with the exception of equities held inside of some of the above funds.

Reply to @ducrow:
Happy to help! Some thoughts
1. New fund. A hedge fund may not always translate to a good mutual fund. See NARFX (which was sold and turned into another fund.) Not comparing management of NARFX to this fund or anything, but I suppose it's a belief that a hedge fund strategy does not always carry over to the mutual fund world. However, the Whitebox fund is doing well so far.
2. FPA Crescent (FPACX) may have a couple of issues (structural - it could probably close), but I think it's still an excellent fund with a great manager in Romick (whose views I continue to agree with a great deal.) Personally, I don't know if I'd replace it or if this is an apples-to-apples replacement. The Whitebox fund is a new fund, but I think this is going to be a unique/unusual offering in that part of the stock holdings may be broad, but there may be a sizable portion in contrarian ideas/plays/themes - a further discussion by the manager regarding his nat gas theme is available in this Barrons article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2012/05/31/why-it-might-finally-be-time-for-natural-gas-to-make-a-comeback/)
Also note, from the Whitebox quarterly report: "Our fund is not currently “market neutral.” We have a strong “long-bias”. At
other times we may have a strong short bias. Our returns will reflect at least a
portion of day to day, normal market volatility. Our goal is to outperform not by
delivering smooth returns all the time. Our goal is to outperform by doing two
things. (1) Avoiding catastrophic capital losses that can derail an investment
program for years, or forever. (2) Being invested in areas of exceptional
opportunity wherever in securities markets those opportunities arise."
So, the fund definitely has the flexibility to dial up and down risk, to the point where it can have a "strong short bias."
3. Amusing name. Whitebox is a play on the opaque "black box" strategies that hedge funds often have. Their big thing is being transparent with shareholders in communications and otherwise.
4. Again, while the hedge fund may be highly regarded, new mutual fund. However, there is a lot available online about the manager. Their "Whitebox Selected Research" is enjoyable reading, both from the articles from others and the articles from Whitebox. Redleaf wrote a book, "Panic", about the financial crisis, which does not appear to be available new anymore from amazon, but is available used, and got good reviews.
5. One other interesting note: the co-manager of the fund is ROB VOGEL
Rob Vogel joined Whitebox Advisors, LLC in 1999 as a convertible bond trader. From 1995 – 1999, Rob was a convertible bond trader for EBF & Associates of Minneapolis. From 1991 – 1995, Rob was an actuary and ran statistical models to estimate insurance reserves. Rob holds an MBA from the University of Minnesota and a BS in Applied Mathematics and Statistics from the University of Florida.
If you look under the Whitebox Selected Research, there is an article from Hedge Fund Review, awarding "Whitebox Concentrated Convertible Arbitrage" the "Best Non-Directional Hedge Fund Over 10 Years"
So, beyond what's available on Redleaf, this gives you some idea about the background of another manager on the fund:
http://www.whiteboxselectedresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/HFR-Article-on-Convertible.pdf
Under that article about the convertible arb hedge fund: "The fund’s investments are
guided by Whitebox’s distinctive
market philosophy. One of the core
themes is to “be more invested at the
bottom than the top”. This reflects
Whitebox’s view that contrary to
conventional investment theories,
markets actually tend to be more
risky when they are less volatile."
“When markets are less volatile,
prices are generally higher, which
probably makes them riskier,” Vogel
explains. “We aim to be less exposed
when markets are tranquil so that,
if the cycle turns and prices get
cheaper, we can add to positions.”
As for the last manager, I think this is awfully interesting: " Prior to joining Whitebox Advisors, LLC in 2002, Jason spent two years working with Nobel Laureate Myron Scholes at Oak Hill Platinum Partners where he developed models for long/short equity strategies. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Scholes
____
Lastly, I don't really want to tell David what to do, but I do agree this is really a fund that would be perfect for a profile. It only has 9.5M under management, but a pretty highly regarded management team.