I thought the idea of the focus being the elements of the holding company was appealing, as well as Strategic's ability to take on smaller stakes in other companies (Tata Power and Asia Commercial Bank, for example, which are listed in the financial report) and the 21% holding of Rothschilds Continuation AG, which is the parent company of the Rothschild investment banks. Jardine Strategic also owns 54% of Jardine Matheson (so it's the majority owner of its parent.) I think both options are excellent choices, although I went with Strategic. Additionally, Dairy Farm specifically (which is also available as a separate entity) is interesting (and has a similarly lengthy history, dating back to the 1800's) as an Asia-region consumer staples/discretionary play, although inflation remains a concern.

merrill lynch wkly commentary
http://rcr.ml.com/Archive/11042554.pdf?q=0VgdV!!VHXj-8SGHLG20YA__&__gda__=1304772452_07d7d956c320c4cd20ac61848704d6b5
don't turn out the lights on commodities yet
http://www.usfunds.com/investor-resources/investor-alert/
Foreign Bond Funds Led Fixed Income In April
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/570924/201105031756/Risk-Appetite-Spiced-Up-Taxables-In-April-As-US-Treasuries-Lagged.htm
are mlps worth the energy
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704810504576305774005723978.html
buy beaten down financials
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11106073/1/buy-beaten-down-banks-kovalski-says.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN
buffett is the smartest idiot i know
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/warren-buffett-is-the-smartest-idiot-i-know-2011-05-02?dist=countdown
How half a percent can ruin your retirement
http://money.msn.com/retirement-investment/article.aspx?post=af16358a-0621-4d41-b0ef-0facdbc2fe03
Fund Favorites & Red Flags: Mutual Series and Vanguard
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=379561
trow price health fund gets a healthy report
http://www.financial-planning.com/news/-2673091-1.html
Popularity Of Target-Date Mutual Funds Soars
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42767457
Stock Funds’ April Gains Defy War, Disasters
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/570921/201105031801/Small-Caps-Lead-Mutual-Funds-To-Best-Month-Of-11.htm
Pimco Total Return ETF: Same Thing, Only Different
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/investing/blog/against-grain/pimco-total-return-etf-same-thing-only-different/1038/
ot
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/streetwise/bill-gates-and-warren-buffett-praise-uranium/article2011037/
ot - Follow market rules of thumb, not crystal balls
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/sc-cons-0505-marksjarvis-20110506,0,5850008.column
Small Caps that Pay Dividends have many Advantage over other Equities, both Large and Small
http://www.smallcapnetwork.com/Small-Caps-that-Pay-Dividends-have-many-Advantage-over-other-Equities-both-Large-and-Small/s/article/view/p/mid/3/id/985/
http://www.smallcapnetwork.com/Small-Caps-that-Pay-Dividends-have-many-Advantage-over-other-Equities-both-Large-and-Small/s/article/view/p/mid/3/id/985/?to_print=1
http://www.gurufocus.com/news/130886/investment-advice-from-jim-rogers-warren-buffett-and-doug-casey

Sounds like your issue is with Islam and radical theocratic Islamic groups, not a fund which tries to invest in accordance with widely-held Islamic principles.
If there is a connection between Amana and AQ/MB, that would be deeply unfortunate.
For the record, I am not a Muslim, but have looked at the Amana Developing/Emerging markets fund because it is a conservative way to play that space, and because Kaiser is not afraid to hold cash. I held off on a purchase for a couple of reasons. It'd be a shame to think that I'd be put on a terrorist watch list just because I bought a particular financial product.

A handy source for unknown financial acronyms
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mlp.asp

If true, I think this needs to be completely disclosed. Simple fact of the matter is if this information is NOT true, then the author opens himself to serious ridicule and libel. Needless to say that hasn't stopped anyone from writing lies, lies and more lies. However given that an Amana Fund has been profiled on Fund Alarm and now the Mutual Fund Observer, I find it prudent to post this information.
The irony is that the Amana Group claims to invest in a Socially Responsible way according to Islamic Principles. While at the same time if the money they are making is being used to fund despicable causes, then Socially Responsible or not, I don't see how any of us on this board would want to invest in the Amana Funds.
I am excerpting a part of what is there on the link below and folks can decide if they want to continue to read on. At the same time, Mr. Snowball thinks this is inappropriate, he may remove it from the board.
....Sheikh DeLorenzo was a top executive (and continues to serve as a key consultant for) a large investment fund called the Amana Trust, which is interesting on several levels. For one, the Amana Trust was founded by a Muslim Brotherhood figure named Yaqub Mirza, who is the most important U.S.-based operative in the SAAR Network of terrorist financiers.
Mr. Mirza was the incorporator or manager of more than a dozen SAAR Network hedge funds, charities, and financial entities, including Mar-Jac Investments, Mena Investments, Sterling Management Group, and Reston Investments. In addition, Mr. Mirza ran the SAAR Network’s centerpiece, an outfit called the SAAR Foundation, which advertised itself as a charity, but was allegedly an important vehicle for laundering money raised in the United States for jihadi groups....
http://www.deepcapture.com/the-miscreants-global-bust-out-chapter-two-the-money-weapon-and-a-jihad-bigger-than-bin-laden/
Best.

Sorry Cathy... the technical compliment was meant for Accipiter and Investor. With respect to the financial side, I'm there with you... Questions only, not too many answers. :-)

Good morning- I just realized that you and Accipiter/Falcon have become the defacto technical gurus of our community... although I'll bet neither of you quite planned it that way. I just wanted to thank both of you for the extra time and thought that you have been putting in on technical matters. In one sense, it's a natural extension of our FA community... trying to help others when we can. I just wish that I had more knowledge in both financial matters and internet technology so that I could be a little more helpful in these areas.
Best regards- OJ

Hi Guys,
Are fund management fee incentives tightly aligned with optimum investment results for their clients?
No, not often enough. Since risk and reward are always positively correlated for most investment organizations, fund management fees are formulated and charged in a manner that encourages managers to seek risk levels that exceed those of their more conservative customers. Given their fee structures, this observation is valid for both mutual fund managers and for hedge fund managers, but especially so for hedge fund managers.
My assertion is not rooted in the obvious organizational goal to increase the size of the fund’s footprint and profits. Although that goal is paramount to the success of all funds, this posting focuses attention on the specific levels of the fee structure itself. That structure promotes extra risk taking to enhance the management’s rewards, mostly at the expense of degrading the client’s comfort level. It is especially egregious when considering Hedge Fund operations.
Let’s examine two representative fund fee schedules: first the nominal 1.5 % management fee charge for an average actively managed equity mutual fund, and secondly, the so-called 2-20 fees for a typical hedge fund. The 2-20 schedule refers to a 2 % overall management charge plus a 20 % tax on annual profits. Of course the hedge fund assumes no liability for failure, but also yields to zero bonus payoff if its performance is downhill for usually an annual measurement period.
For the purposes of this example I postulated a $100,000 investment, perhaps a slice from a much larger portfolio. This tactic acknowledges the old adage to diversify and not put all eggs into a single basket no matter how attractive or secure that basket might appear.
To make the rewards/penalties more concrete and the analysis more tractable, I’ll assume that the fund management is considering a single, very aggressive investment opportunity that has a 50 % probability of a 50 % gain, but also has a 50 % likelihood of a substantial 50 % loss for the next year. These aggressive projections are made to emphasize potential portfolio impacts. Given today’s hostile environment, a 0 % return on idle cash is postulated; that’s not a bad assumption.
Most private investors would pass on this risky proposition. Many would require projected expected returns to be at least double possible losses given our historic risk aversion. This representative risk aversion profile has been verified by numerous academic Behavioral studies.
But what about assessing the investment prospects from the fund manager’s purview? His reward incentives for gambling on a 50/50 target proposition might prompt him to make a decision that his client would summarily dismiss if left to his own assessments.
I’ll do the numbers for a private investor, for an active mutual fund company, and for a hedge fund operation to identify profit incentives. For illustrative purposes, I will only propose two option scenarios: either a decision not to invest at all, or commit a $100,000 investment to the stipulated risky venture (really an adventure).
I propose to make the decision to invest or not to invest on a Total Expected Return (TER) basis. For all possible outcomes Total Expected Return is equal to the product of Anticipated Return (AR) times the Probability of that Event (PE) occurring summed over all outcomes. In equation format: TER = summation of all (AR X PE) possibilities. The TER is the criterion that will be used as a measure to control the final investment decision.
Maximizing TER does not guarantee a favorable outcome, but it does optimize prospective profits in an uncertain world. It is a rational econometric approach given an imperfect and incomplete information environment. Note that in almost every trade, uncertainty and information asymmetry exists that gives one participant of the trade an edge over the other side.
There is a disjuncture here between customer and fund providers on the evaluations of their respective TERs. For the private investor or fund client, the TER is based on anticipated holdings performance; for the fund providers, the TER is based on various accrued fees since these firms have limited or no skin directly in the game. TER is very much perspective dependent.
Observe that the TERs for the investor or client are calculated separately from the TER for the fund operators. And that difference produces a disparate incentive between the engaged parties when making an investment decision. This is a distinction with a difference; it not only matters, it matters greatly.
I have completed these calculations to demonstrate the disconnect between the TER for a private investor and the TER for a fund agent. The analysis illustrates the asymmetric nature of the reward incentives. I elected not to incorporate these sample calculations in this submittal because they are somewhat mind-numbing.
The conclusion from these analyses is that a substantial disparity exists between fund management incentives (their TERs) and an individual investor incentives (our TERs). That disjuncture encourages fund management to accept risks that a private investor would discard out-of-hand. Economists will always tell you that incentives are a primary motivation for any action; incentives definitely matter.
The bottom-line is that fund fee schedules, especially those of the Hedge fund industry, are not properly aligned with those of their clientele. In many instances, fund managers are persuaded to seek risks that their customers would immediately reject. Improperly constructed incentives often do damage.
This is yet another argument to be as independent an investor as your resources, your agenda, your time, and your skill set permits.
I guess hindsight is always easier than foresight. In retrospect it is apparent that when risks are not mutually shared, the actors in any endeavor will align themselves across a wide spectrum of actions; those confronted with a heavy risk burden will be more conservative while those not so challenged will favor more risky approaches. If individuals perceive themselves as underwater, more risk is an acceptable avenue to full recovery.
Never is the risk exposure asymmetry more evident then in the Hedge Fund/client investment relationship. The Hedge Fund operations assume almost zero risk, yet have the potential for enormous profits. That’s an unhealthy arrangement.
Allow me to close with a quote from Nikita Khrushchev: “Call it what you will, incentives are what get people to work harder.” Even the Communists understood incentive priorities. As wise investors, we should recognize and honor incentive differences when making all our financial decisions
Understanding the importance of incentives and costs for all financial matters are mandatory considerations when constructing and nurturing a retirement portfolio.
Keep it balanced folks. And stay away from Hedge Funds.
Best Regards,
MJG

Hey John,
Thanks for the links. I was intrigued by the Ever Bank product. The 5 year example they illustrate on their website got me doing a little math. In their example (which I found here):
https://www.everbank.com/_documents/_marketsafe/DiversifiedCommodities_2011-05.pdf
It states that they would apply a 5 year cumulative interest of 27.2% to the initial investment. This would equate to five year CD paying 5%. The 27.2% sounds so much bigger doesn't it? I would worry about volatility in the commodities market offsetting positive gains with negative losses which the investor absorbs. Remember, the bank is always taking the gains over 10% while the investor absorbs any losses. What they don't show clearly are the banks profit totals for any cumulative Net Return over 10% which they receive almost risk free.
In the first year, the bank's average return is 18.4% verses 4.9% to the investor. Year two, it is an astounding 53% for the bank. Because of one loss (in hogs), just 7.1% for the investor. Year 3, the bank nets 83.5% and the investor a mere 7%. In year four, the investor absorbs 5 down market (less than 10%) netting an average for the year of just 0.6%. But, the bank doesn't take that risk. Their only rewarded with the "winning" five segments which net an average return of 69%. The fifth year, the bank almost doubles their money with an average return of 99.7%. The investor nets an average for year five of 7.6%.
This 5 year scenario would net the bank a cumulative return of 323.6%. At almost no risk.
The bank's only risk is to return your initial investment. They can accomplish this very cheaply by buying insurance such as options or other financial wizardry products.
Short version: Watch out!

It never ceases to amaze me what awful investment options are included in most 401k plans. I mean, where do the trustees/investment committees come up with such truly bizarre lists? I understand when a plan is sponsored by an insurance company, and many plans are variable annuities, which is awful in itself. But then they compound the error by the poor investment options available. Do you suppose the insurance company gets some kind of financial remuneration from the fund companies it uses? Nah, that would NEVER happen (LOL!).
But what about those plans that are NOT through an insurance company? Where do the trustees find some of these truly horrible funds, and how do they justify them from a fiduciary standard? The truth is that they cannot justify them, and at some point one or more plan participant could file suit, and these folks would have no defense. And very few plans have any kind of Investment Policy Statement, either, which would at least provide some kind of investment guide and recognition of fiduciary responsibility.
The list of options in the plan above at least has 2-3 that are acceptable, but some are just crazy.

Mark, I'm astounded that you took all that time to enter each investment in Morningstar. That was so nice and generous of you - THANK YOU SO MUCH! I wish this Forum was capable of inputting .pdf or excel files as that would have made it so much easier for me and those who wished to read my post.
I entered all of Mom's (and our) Portfolios in M* a year ago as soon as I felt I was able to even understand what to enter. I have checked their Portfolio analysis and, though there is some very useful information, their evaluations are pretty generic and they seem to be especially poor in evaluating the bond portion - and I trust many posters here more than I do M* - thus my request for input here.
I learned enough from this Forum and reading as much as I could to feel that there should be at least some international exposure - especially with my (and many others here) that the U.S. is bound for some big trouble with a dysfunctional government. So I did ask the investment manager late last year to add some. He did add a small amount, and recently told me he is planning to add a little more (in international stocks, and not mutual funds apparently). So I am grateful that he is trying to be accommodating to me.
Most importantly, the responses like yours have calmed me enough to feel that I can relax a bit, for a few months anyway. I felt it would have been necessary to take more immediate action if the consensus was that the investment manager's investment choices have been - or are likely to in the near future - be harmful to Mom's financial security.
So right now it will just be nice to not have to take any more action or have to make any more decisions for a while.
P.S. (Hope this is ok to add in this Forum) We had to take Mom to the hospital on Sunday (first time she has had to in 40+ years). She had bad cold, which turned into pneumonia. They are taking care of that but Mom still has very low oxygen level, so lots of follow-up care will be needed - though, thankfully, not life threatening now and we should be able to bring her back to Assisted Living today. I'm mentioning this because I wanted to emphasize to anyone reading this how important it is to have any loved ones take the time to complete a legal Health Directive WHILE THEY ARE HEALTHY. Mom has always been quite adament about not wanting to be kept alive by a machine and made it quite clear in the Directive what her wishes are. This is especially important if you have sisters like mine who had opposite views. It's so easy to put this off for "another time."

Cathy, I am in agreement with all that msf had to say in general about this portfolio. When I look at it all that goes through my mind is what would it look like if all of the dividends over the years had been reinvested in additional shares. Mind-boggling!
Anyway I entered your holdings into a M* Instant X-ray and it indicates that in total the portfolio is roughly a 50:50 mix of stocks and bonds but nearly all US based. Pityfull low foreign exposure in this day and age I think but maybe that's by design. The stock portion in general mimics the S&P 500 but is currently favoring Sensitive holdings (communication, energy, technology, industrials) over Cyclical (basic materials, financial, real estate). Nothing really to get over excited about I don't think.
The equity portion is heavily tilted toward large caps (93%) fairly equally disbursed amongst LV-LB-LG with the remainder small & midcap. The bond portion indicates an medium quality (97%) with a moderate rate interest sensitivity bias (78%) - right smack dab in the middle of the 9-box square.
Bottom line I don't believe that USB is doing you any harm but one could probably just put this thing on autopilot and walk away. Just looking at your trade dates suggests that they are not churning your mom's assets nor are they taking outside risks. Take a break, count your blessings and maybe give up the fight with your sister.
I'd link you directly to the Instant X-ray I used but all you will see is a new, blank form for you to fill in. However that link is here: http://portfolio.morningstar.com/NewPort/Free/InstantXrayEntry.aspx?entrynum=50&runMode=MSTAR

I'm in. Bought the allocation fund about a month ago. Neither FAIRX or FAAFX have done very well year-to-date. They do trend together pretty closely. I'm guessing the allocation fund has a pretty similar portfolio as FAIRX - very concentrated in financial services.
I'm betting this guy didn't wake up and all of a sudden become dumb. I'm confident that this fund will do very well over a market cycle. Fingers crossed.

WTF? Financial Pron at its greatest.
A Fund Manager is actually Predicting he will do well in future? Whatever happened to "Past Performance is not an Indicator of Future Results"?
Wait a second! That's exactly what he's saying. I stunk up the place, but just you wait and see! Be there or be square! Or be dead...
Mr. Harry Lange, put your entire net worth into FMAGX. No need to make predictions then, and WSJ reporters can then start earning a living. Oh but wait. Maybe you have invested money in the company that publishes WSJ? Trying to increase circulation, eh?
You, smarty pants you!!!
:BARF:

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MSF! I am so grateful (and amazed) at the time you spent reviewing my questions and preparing your very detailed and thorough answer.
Receiving opinions like yours indicating that this may be a reasonable portfolio for Mom's age and main wish to mainly just protect her principle at this stage would actually be such a relief for me. Though I am very pleased with the results so far of the one Trust of Mom's that I have been managing, I still don't have any illusions that 9 months of investing means I am a seasoned investor - especially when the last 9 months have had enough periods that have been generally good for almost any portfolio.
Re cash allocations. USB has all the dividends put into cash accounts, so apparently the accumulation is enough for them to pay their fees and pay Mom a quarterly distribution. The manager has capped distributions at 3.56% annually, turning down my recent request for 4%-5% minimum annual distribution. The smaller percentage used to cover Mom's expenses, but after the large losses in 2008-09, the balance which this percentage is based was reduced signifcantly.
When Mom's expenses accelerate enough that the distributions from all her trusts, plus social security and her Long-term Care payments are substantially lower, I have sufficient funds of hers in Credit Union money market and shorter term of laddered cd's to cover a fairly major extra amount. But we will first reduce or eliminate Mom's annual gifts to my sister and my family. I've made sure that Mom has at least 2 years of reduced expenses plus accessible funds even if her care reaches $150k/year and her income does not increase.
The reason I combined the 4 trusts is that, though they were originally set up by different people, these 4 all have Mom has the sole beneficiary (instead of other family members also), so the bank investor combines these as a total portfolio, which I thought was reasonable if the diversification of the combined accounts was reasonable.
Your questions regarding the specific investments are intelligent and very reasonable. Several I don't have answers for, which is why I have decided to consult with another Estate Attorney and Fee-Only Financial advisor in a couple of months (you don't by any chance live in Southern California, do you?). I do believe that the original Family Trust was set up by Will Mayo before his death in 1911, with most of the subsequent Trusts set up by my grandmother and grandfather (including the 9080 trust). All the investments I posted I took directly from a report I requested, which was called "Taxlot Detail Without Totals", which includes all the original trade dates (which is what I used).
The stock investments I mentioned that were held previously were stocks and not mutual funds. I have only been able to track back specific investment changes for 3 years, which was the time my Mom moved to Assisted Living. My sister had thrown away all previous statements and trust documents when she cleaned out Mom's condo. I requested, and received, copies of at least some of these trusts.
I wanted to answer your questions as best I could. But I certainly wouldn't expect you to spend any more time than you already have in responding, which has been so helpful to me. THANK YOU AGAIN!
Cathy

Howdy,
Here is a Fidelity Work Horse fund:
Fid. Capital & Income, FAGIX
Listed as, and indeed a High Yield bond; that also holds 12-20% in equity holdings, depending on market conditions. This fund, not unlike 95% of mutual funds available is subject to market downturns, too; but with the exception of June, 2008-May, 2009 we have had monies in this fund since 1981.
The M* link here will let you review the YTD, 1, 3, 5 & 10 year total returns and I suggest that anyone compare their favorite equity fund; with the exception of narrow sector funds against this stellar return record.
http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?Country=USA&ss=gf&Symbol=FAGIX
FAGIX does and has had commentary and reviews from the financial world, over the years; but is one of those funds among the many 1,000's, that in my opinion, does not receive much flag waving for its efforts.
Take care,
Catch

Fidelity has $7.95 trades. A bit higher than Scottrade but very competitive. Fidelity also offers 31 no-fee ETFs that cover major asset classes.
Having said that your friend's broad brush of Fidelity is probably unfair. Fidelity is not a single company. There is Fidelity as a brokerage, Fidelity as an asset management company, Fidelity as research services provider. Scottrade is only comparable with Fidelity in brokerage services category. And in this category, Scottrade is only comparable to Fidelity in the services they offer and what they do with the cash account (money market fund and cash sweep accounts). I personally do not see Scottrade is better than Fidelity in this respect.
After the scare of 2008 where 1 money market fund broke the buck, the quality and duration of money market funds have been improved. Even the fund that broke the buck was able to return 97 cents on the dollar. Money market funds at major houses were not at risk. Besides, in a multi-dimensional company like Fidelity, the parent company can support the money market fund because they have multiple streams of income while a company like Scottrade does not.
Anyhow, much bigger money losers during the financial crisis was not the money market funds but supposedly conservative ultra short bond funds (some had names like YieldPlus etc). Many funds in this category were investing in these higher yielding mortgage securities to generate dividend far above the returns possible from money market accounts and funds. In the end, those lost a lot of money. Once again, of two supposedly similar investments, one is paying much more, it must be investing much more riskier investments. This is especially true for fixed income.
Does Fidelity offer mutual funds that invest partially in riskier assets? Most likely yes, just like many popular bond funds in the industry. In most bond funds, these assets are a tiny percentage. Junk bond funds, some mortgage bond funds are likely to invest in heavier percentages. But it is understood these funds are not cash equivalent.
I personally do not have a problem with CDOs and Sub-prime bonds as long as the risk is properly managed and percentage invested does not cause fund to run into liquidity issues when market panics. In particular, some distressed asset hedge funds make a killing buying these on pennies on the dollar and selling much higher. It is not only what is being invested on, but at what price!
Those sub-prime mortgage bonds in Fed balance sheet bought from Bear Sterns, AIG has been returning a good yield and Fed is most likely to be positive in the end. Even AIG wanted to buy back the book from Fed because they are a good deal now.
Anyway, sorry about my rambling. I think if you invest in Fidelity and avoid Fidelity bond funds, you are as safe as you are investing in Scottrade (that does NOT mean you should avoid Fidelity bond funds, I'm saying this so comparison would be more apples to apples).

I have been receiving excellent feedback from many posters here that has helped me monitor my 90-year old Mom’s trusts at USB. I plan on acting early this summer on the good suggestions to hire lawyer/financial consultant.
Many posters are already familiar with my Mom’s situation. For those of you who are not, I want to protect my Mom’s money as much as possible at this point, so have told USB to invest Conservatively, enough to hopefully cover inflation. Since our family is long-lived, Mom could live another 10 years. Mom is cognitively impaired, which has a good chance of worsening over time. If so, her current $70k Assisted Living, Medical and prescription expenses could easily exceed $100k annually.
What I would most like now is not recommendations for any specific mutual funds or other investment changes. Instead, what I am hoping for are your opinions about the overall Portfolio and investment diversifications – especially given Mom’s age and her goals. The Portfolio below is actually the combined 4 USB Rochester Portfolios (thus the duplicates). The numbers after the investment name reference which account. 2030 is the Living Trust Mom herself set up and this, along with 1420 both have step-up basis tax wise, 9080 and 1370 do not have step-up basis.
I am especially interested in your evaluation of how the Investment Manager has done over the years, in general (if possible), so I have included the year each investment was made to give you an idea of how long investments have been held and at what economy point they have been purchased. There are a lot of very intelligent and capable investors here that have widely different portofolios that work for them, so it would really help me to get diverse point of views. Though most investments just seem to be decades+ “buy and hold”, there are quite a few changes in 2009 and 2010 as that was the time I learned just enough to feel the investments (which previously held more stocks) weren’t protecting Mom enough, so I asked the manager to rebalance what he could to lower her overall risk.
Most importantly, do you see any major problems in the overall diversification of these combined portfolios? Is it possible for you to give a generalized “rating” of this portfolio? Can you tell me anything about this Manager’s investment philosophy that could make it detrimental to Mom?
I'm sorry this is long – I know it’s asking a lot for you to even take the time to read this, much less give me your comments. Cathy
P.S. I SPENT A LOT OF TIME ADDING SPACES SO THIS WOULD LINE UP RIGHT - looked right in draft, but skewed in final.
% Name Ticker Weight Date Purchased Stock Industry/Fund Category
0.4 FAIXX-1stAmer Cash Acct (9080) CASH$
0.5 Cash FAIXX 1st AmerPrime (1370) CASH$
0.5 CASH-1stAmeric FAIXX (2030) CASH$
0.3 CASH FAIXX 1st Amer (1420) CASH$
2.0 Nuveen Short-Term Bond I (2030) FLTIX 2010 Short-Term Bond
0.5 Nuveen Inflation Protected(1370) FYIPX 2010 Inflation-Protected Bond
1.5 Nuveen California Tax-Free (1420) FCAYX 1997 Muni California Long
2.4 Nuveen California Tax-Free (1370) FCAYX 1997 Muni California Long
6.3 PIMCO Total Return Instl (1420) PTTRX 2009, 2010 Intermediate-Term Bond
8.3 PIMCO Total Return Instl (2030) PTTRX 2009, 2010 Intermediate-Term Bond
7.6 PIMCO Total Return Instl (9080) PTTRX 2009, 2010 Intermediate-Term Bond
8.7 PIMCO Total Return Instl (1370) PTTRX 2009, 2010 Intermediate-Term Bond
1.7 Nuveen Total Return Bond I (1370) FCBYX 2010 Intermediate-Term Bond
1.7 Nuveen Total Return Bond I (9080) FCBYX 2010 Intermediate-Term Bond
1.3 Nuveen Core Bond I (1420) FFIIX 2010 Intermediate-Term Bond
2.0 Nuveen Core Bond I (9080) FFIIX 2010 Intermediate-Term Bond
2.6 Wells Fargo Company (2030) WFC 1995 Banks - Regional - US
0.6 Bank of America Corp (1420) BAC 1994 Banks - Regional - US
0.6 Bank of America Corp (9080) BAC 1911 Banks - Regional - US
2.1 Coca-Cola Company (1420) KO 1994 Beverages - Soft Drinks
0.7 Accenture PLC (9080) ACN 2003, 2009 Business Services
1.9 Hewlett-Packard Company (9080) HPQ 1911 Computer Systems
0.3 Target Corporation (1420) TGT 2003 Discount Stores
1.8 3M Company (9080) MMM 1911 Diversified Industrials
3.7 3M Company (2030) MMM 1975 Diversified Industrials
1.9 3M Company (1420) MMM 1994 Diversified Industrials
1.3 General Electric Company (1420)GE 1994 Diversified Industrials
0.7 General Electric Company (9080)GE 1911 Diversified Industrials
2.0 General Electric Company (2030) GE 1919 Diversified Industrials
1.4 Abbott Laboratories (9080) ABT 1992 Drug Manufacturers - Major
1.3 Bristol-Myers Squibbpany (2030)BMY 1986, 1987 Drug Manufacturers - Major
0.7 Merck & Co, Inc. (1420) MRK 1994 Drug Manufacturers - Major
2.9 Caterpillar Inc. (9080) CAT 1911 Farm & Construction Equipment
1.9 Procter & Gamble Company (142)PG 1994 Household & Personal Products
3.1 Nuveen Equity Income I (1370) FAQIX 2003 Large Value
0.3 Zimmer Holdings, Inc. (1420) ZMH 1994 Medical Devices
0.3 Zimmer Holdings, Inc. (2030) ZMH 1986, 1987 Medical Devices
0.6 T Rowe Price Mid-Cap Value (9080TRMCX 2010 Mid-Cap Value
2.9 Schlumberger, Ltd. (9080) SLB 1911 Oil & Gas Equipment & Services
3.1 ExxonMobil Corporation (2030)XOM 1919 Oil & Gas Integrated
2.3 ExxonMobil Corporation (1420)XOM 1994 Oil & Gas Integrated
3.2 General Mills, Inc. (2030) GIS 1973 Packaged Foods
1.0 Sealed Air Corporation (1420) SEE 1994 Packaging & Containers
1.4 AT&T, Inc. (1420) T 1994 Telecom Services
0.7 Credit Suisse Commod Ret(1370)CRSOX 2009, 2010 Commodities Broad Basket
0.6 Credit Suisse Commod Ret (1420) CRSOX 2009, 2010 Commodities Broad Basket
0.5 Credit Suisse Commod Ret (9080) CRSOX 2009 Commodities Broad Basket
0.3 iPath DJ-UBS CommodIndxETN (2030)DJP 2010 Commodities Broad Basket
0.6 Nuveen Real Estate Secs I (1420) FARCX 2010 Real Estate
0.3 Nuveen Real Estate Secs I (9080) FARCX 2010 Real Estate
1.2 Nuveen Real Estate Secs I (1370) FARCX 1996 Real Estate
0.7 iShares MSCI Emerging Index (1420)EEM 2009 Diversified Emerging Mkts
0.5 American Funds EuroPacific (1420) AEPFX 2009 Foreign Large Blend
0.8 American Funds EuroPacific(9080) AEPFX 2009 Foreign Large Blend
1.2 iShares MSCI EAFE Index (9080) EFA 2008, 2010 Foreign Large Blend
0.5 Scout International (1420) UMBWX 2009 Foreign Large Growth
MOM RST COMBINED MOM RST COMBINED 100.0

Howdy,
I cheated !!! This is a copy/paste of a review of this book; which is on a book shelf at this house. However, I could not have written a better summary; and for the most part this review and the words speak volumes about this house, too; and many who frequent this board. The review is a bit long; but many here will be nodding in agreement and saying "uh-huh" silently. The review itself contains many words of wisdom.
Buy it through the Amazon link for MFO. You will not be disappointed with the many lessons of the book and will allow for a better self-understanding. This would also be a wonderful gift for those you know who need more understanding of what it takes to "get on the right side of the investment tracks".
Regards,
Catch
The Millionaire Next Door (1996)
By Thomas J. Stanley & William D. Danko
The Millionaire Next Door is one of the most important books recently published on the subject of personal finance.
Thomas Stanley and William Danko are professors of sociology who have made studying wealthy Americans their specialty. They have performed extensive statistical research to profile who wealthy Americans are, how they acquired their wealth, how they live, and how their families function.
From the inception, Stanley and Danko make it clear that the image of "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" has nothing to do with the lifestyle of most wealthy Americans, especially first-generation wealthy Americans. Contrary to the belief of many people who believe most wealth is inherited and "you can’t make it in America today," eighty percent of America’s millionaires are first-generation rich.
I am going to focus on first-generation wealthy Americans here, because they give the most valuable lessons for acquiring wealth. I’ll call them "the wealthy."
The wealthy are extremely frugal. They do not live in extravagant homes and drive Rolls Royces or BMWs. They live in modest homes and mostly drive full size American cars. (57.7% of the vehicles millionaires are driving are American cars or trucks.) Many of them buy used cars (about 36%).
Most of the wealthy have their own businesses. Self-employed people are four times more likely to be millionaires than those who work for others. Most of their businesses are not Fortune 500 corporations.
20% of affluent households in America are headed by retirees. Of the remaining 80%, more than two-thirds are headed by self-employed owners of businesses.
The wealthy did not necessarily accumulate their wealth from high salaries or high incomes. Instead, they are excellent at managing their assets. The two main approaches used to accumulate their assets are budgeting and the "pay yourself" or set aside approach. (Take 15% of your earnings and set them aside as "untouchable" for personal spending.)
The wealthy are very proactive in their investment programs. They study investments and consistently invest in the areas they understand best.
The wealthy highly value education. Almost uniformly they underwrite the education of their children and encourage their children to pursue a profession, such as law, medicine, dentistry or accounting.
Many of the wealthy are immigrants who haven’t been caught up in the American consumer lifestyle.
The American consumer lifestyle is the greatest enemy of accumulating wealth. The children of the wealthy do not understand how their parents accumulated wealth, so they consume it. This is the reason family fortunes are dissipated. There are no wealthy Vanderbuilts today.
Why should the study of the wealthy concern you? Isn’t money the root of all evil?
The economic facts are that the median (typical) household in America has a net worth of $15,000, excluding home equity. The median household net worth for the top one-fifth of American households, excluding home equity, is less than $60,000. Without Social Security benefits, almost one-half of Americans over age sixty-five would live in poverty. (And Social Security is in trouble!)
I should think that one goal that should be on the list of most people is to be financially independent. There is a certain confidence one has when in this position. Call it "peace of mind." You can do an enormous amount of good when you have the means. Yet, despite the fact that many people with relatively modest incomes achieve financial independence, most of us never get out of the starting gate!

Howdy, Accipiter-

Well, much of what you say is accurate, and speaking from the perspective of a technician, I certainly can see that side of things. I recently was discussing this subject by email with some other board members, and to save time and energy I am going to cut and paste some of that conversation:
"I'd suggest the addition of a "how to" page, up at the top with the main headings, with suggestions and advice on "how to" get the most out of the site. Sort of a technical primer, but written in very plain English. Those of us who are are either unafraid or stupid enough to experiment (and possibly break a few things along the way) have figured out a lot of stuff by trial and error, but I'll bet that there are a whole lot of folks who are completely intimidated by all of the various bells and whistles."
(Parenthetically, I am reminded of a familiar saying in electronics: "When all else fails, read the manual".)
"As a radio technician for SF 911, I was often acting as an intermediary between the technical setup and the non-technical users, our "customers". Trust me, it is only too easy for technical folks to forget that many normal people have neither the intuitive feel for, nor any real desire to acquire, understanding of the underpinnings of either software or hardware. Whenever I was in the situation of designing something that had a user interface, I spent a LOT of time sitting down with the end users and seeing if and how they liked what we were proposing. Almost always I found that our initial interface approach could be significantly improved by simply listening to what they had to say. (I will have to concede that frequently the design effort necessary to make the whole thing appear "simple" or intuitive meant an enormous additional amount of stuff going on underneath where nobody could see it.)"
"I am particularly uneasy about the perceived loss of some of the more provocative or interesting FA posters, and I have a hunch that perhaps some of them are simply intimidated, and don't think the effort to learn all these new tricks is worth it. I'm in my 70's, and you would be amazed at how many people I know in our age bracket who are still totally intimidated by computers, and in fact basically use them only for email and maybe Google. My wife and most of our friends come to mind, for instance. We should do our best to try and coerce these folks into (or maybe back into) the community."
"Specifically, a number of the regular FA posters who are usually reasonably pliable and adaptable seem to be very negative with respect to the general overall format since the inclusion of the "response" feature. (BTW, I have no problems with it, and have been attempting to argue the case for the present setup as best I can.) The thread: "5 new messages, same topic. Am I the only one finding it difficult to pick apart a message thread???" is just the latest along these general lines."
"I am a webpage ignoramus, and I do realize that a request that sounds simple may in fact be anything but. Gets back to the subject of user interface, yet again. Sometimes the time and effort needed to make an interface more acceptable seems totally disproportionate to the end result, but we are dealing with human beings here, not computers, and that's unfortunately the way it is."
By the way, the very little that I do know about html I learned from www.w3schools.com, and for those with the time and curiosity for a little self-help that is an outstanding resource. I also agree that we are in some cases asking for conflicting options, but again, differing perspectives are unfortunately a basic design flaw of human beings.
Personally, I think that it's a shame that you deleted your suggestions and hints. I think that a page like that would be quite useful. You look at this stuff and it's second nature to you- and perhaps don't stop to think that the reason that others don't immediately respond and help is simply because they are overwhelmed and intimidated. Look at the basic raison d'être for FA, and this site too: People come here for mutual support and information on financial matters, and the premise is wildly successful.
If you see these very same people failing to achieve that success in the area of technical expertise, it obviously isn't because they aren't built to help... it's because they are out of their field of knowledge.
Regards-OJ