Hi @Tony,
Thanks for the tip. It's much appreciated.
I'm not a trader but I still have the $2.00 bill that Ed Seykota sent me years back when I joined the tribe. "If I miss a set-up I await the next." Perhaps, it is time for me to revisit my spiff investing theme and 5,1 it.
Please keep posting.
Old_Skeet

Here's the full Natixis 2017 global survey report:
http://durableportfolios.com/global/understanding-investors/2017-global-survey-of-individual-investors-retirement-report
and the full Natixis press release on the US slice of that survey:
https://ngam.natixis.com/us/resources/2017-global-individual-investor-survey-press-release
(note that the table at the bottom of that US press release is global data, not data limited to US participants)
Just looking at the figures in the excerpt Ted quoted, my reaction was: what are these people smoking?
The historical real return of the US large cap market over the last century has been 7%. Depending on your source, bonds (10 year Treasuries) have returned between 2% and 6% less than stocks.
[See the stock link above: risk premium of stocks over bonds of 6%, historical nominal bond return of 5% with inflation average of 2%-3%, or simply the difference in nominal returns of stocks and bonds, which has been 2% or greater over the past 90 years.]
So even if the markets produce average real returns going forward (not expected over the next decade), you'd need a very aggressive (nearly all stock) portfolio to get to the 5.9% real return that advisors are supposedly predicting. (The 5.9%/advisors and 8.9%/investors figures are not in the Natixis releases, so they must come from the full survey.)
The FA Mag article says that there's a disconnect (51% difference) between investors and advisors, based on these two figures. If there is this disconnect, what does that say about the job that advisors are doing in educating and guiding their clients?
But there is another possibility. Investors may not understand what real return means, and are simply reporting nominal return expectations. That 3% difference would fall within a reasonable range of inflation possibilities. The Natixis report seems to support this interpretation of the data, as it observes that only 1/6 of Millennials (17%) "have factored inflation into their retirement savings planning." (The next sentence of the release hypothesizes a 3% inflation rate.)
Finally, note that the survey may not be representative of American households - just ones with money. It surveyed only investors with over $100K in investable assets. (About 30% Gen X, 30% Gen Y, 30% Boomers, 10% Retirees.) Most households don't have nearly that much in net worth let alone investable assets, though that's a whole 'nuther story.

So, an 8.9% return over inflation, eh? No mention of taxes on distributions or other withdrawals relative to the required annual real return %.
Wondering which Natixis choices will meet the requirements of the "investors" as noted in the article.
https://ngam.natixis.com/us/funds-by-asset-class
Presuming the respondents are all Natixis account holders in this survey and use Natixis advisors, too; and yet the respondents express, IMO; very conflicted opinions of what they think they understand about investing, trusting an advisor, and risk and reward to obtain the return.
Would be interesting to actually chat with these folks about where they obtain or rationalized "their" return goals.
Anyone here know of investment vehicles/choices mix over the many years, with nominal risk/reward that would provide an annualized return of 11.9% (3% average inflation over the longer term backwards looking) and without knowing about taxes on returns?
Back testing with cherry picking investment does not count; as the article is about forward returns, yes?
Well, anyway; another coffee here and to the great outdoors.
Regards,
Catch

Finally found a copy of the iMoneyNet taxonomy of enhanced cash vehicles:

• Cash plus funds - mark to market, seek $1 NAV, up to 180 day maturities
  
• Enhanced cash funds - floating NAV (like RPHYX), durations up to a year
  
• Ultrashort bond funds - floating NAV, durations 1-3 years

I'm still reading through the 10 page presentation. The list above came from graphic on p. 3.
http://www.imoneynet.net/mkt/pdf/2016-cpiwg.pdf

This article reminds me of a few of the misplaced,
misunderstood aphorisms that Wall Street has appropriated
from popular culture… since they have so few original ideas.
“Cash is King”
We all know that when the famous Bible thumping music critic
Chester Hunkelbum made that comment, he was referring
to Johnny Cash. How could he ever know that Wall Street
would steal and make it their own?
“It will not be broke by prophet”
Okay, Hunkelbum had bad grammar. But he was referring to
Abraham the prophet when he tripped and almost broke the
10-commandment stone tablet that Moses had placed in his backpack
for safekeeping. Along came some financial adviser who bastardized this
into something about not going broke if you take a profit.
“Every ship at the bottom of the ocean has a chartroom”
It’s easy to see how Hunkelbum became depressed years later when
struggling to maintain his credibility. The computer age was, as he said,
“uncharted territory”. As readers began logging off his web site,
he lamented, “We’re bottoming. Another ship has left the chat room.”
Leave it to Wall Street to snatch this comment and twist it to their liking.
We shall miss Chester Hunkelbum

Hi @johnN,
John thanks for posting the article on utilities. Eventhough utilities account for about 3% of the S&P 500 Index they currently make up about 7% of Old_Skeet's holdings. I'm thinking of raising my utility sector weighting by about (1%) by adding a mutual fund (AWTAX) that's theme centers around water.
Think about it ... the two or three things we widely use in our homes are electricty, natural gas and water (at least they are in mine). Heck, I even have and maintain a standby power generation system should there be a power outage at my home. Then there is the phone and internet that kinda follows utilities.
It is a bum deal for the rate payers in South Carolina that (Summner) a nuclear power plant will most likely never be completed. I'm thinking that the power companies owe the rate payers a refund for this power plant folly of their making. Instead the power companies want the rate payers to pay more for a plant that looks like it will never be brought on line. I look for things to heat up in South Carolina over this in the coming months as hearings take place in Columbia. While in North Carolina Duke Energy wants it's rate payers to pay for coal ash pond clean up that the utility mishandled through the years and are going to be very costly to clean up. Hearings are underway in Raleigh as I write concerning this.
If the rates payers wind up having to pay for these failures and follies of the utility companies ... I'm increasing my allocation in the utility sector. In a sence, I'll collect what I have to pay out through an increase in utility rates with their payment of dividends back to me as I own homes in both states.
For me, it is a no brainer ... own some utilities as the rate payers most likely will have to pay up.

I am a long time RPHYX shareholder, but have been reducing my position and am reconsidering its value. Originally its stated goals were (as David Snowball put it) 300-400 bps over money market. But as Junkster points out in this earlier thread:

This fund is not going to give you 3.5%-4.5% a year. I mean 2.20% over the past 3 years and 2.76 over the past 5 years. This year it is on track for around 2.80. Some of the Fidelity money market funds are now yielding over 1% (of course you will need a million dollars) And lesser money market funds yields are rising and will continue to rise with the increase in the fed funds rate. So no way 300-400bps over money market. Otherwise a fine fund with negligible volatility and way above money market returns (for now) This we can agree on.

Morningstar currently has this fund at 2.41% over the past year, 2.19% over the past 3 years and 2.58% over the past 5 years. Of course this is in part due to 2015, where there some investment mistakes resulted in a disastrous year (relatively speaking). However, just looking at the more recent returns, it doesn't seem like "300-400 bps over money market" has been a feasible goal for some time now.
I took a look at some of the recent manager commentaries on the RiverPark website, but they didn't seem to give much insight as to target return and whether they expect recent trends to persist. What do other folks think -- Is a return of 2.5% a more realistic expectation for this fund? Is it still worth sticking to around this level?

FTI: Exposure to one of the most highly anticipated technological trends of recent years will soon be available to investors in one of the most popular investment wrappers on the market.
Evolve Funds, an investment fund based in Toronto, is launching an exchange-traded fund dedicated to innovation in automobiles. The fund will hold companies “that are directly or indirectly involved in developing electric drivetrains, autonomous driving or network connected services for automobiles,” per its prospectus.
It will begin trading on Friday, according to a Reuters report. Evolve Funds didn’t immediately return a request for comment or confirmation.
The Evolve Automobile Innovation Index ETF will trade under the symbol “CARS” and charge an annual expense ratio of 0.4%.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/think-driverless-cars-are-the-future-a-new-etf-lets-you-invest-in-them-now-2017-09-28/print

finally. it should have been put out of its misery years ago.

Thanks for all the replies.
Let me state this surrender charge applied to friends mother. If I understood her they were very high !!
I held my late wife's 401-k for a number of years to receive some extra guidance & liability issues. At this time I'm rolling that one & mine to Vanguard .
With that said , I was wondering if I'll get a closing statement or just a notice that the money has been deposited to my account from Vanguard ?
Also let it be known I received 10 pages on how to handle the rollover from her 401-k & next to nothing from mine other than the papers to fill out
Thanks again, Derf

Yes they can, though there may be laws I'm unfamiliar with when the distributions are involuntary (e.g. if the company exercises its right to close a small account or if your mother is required to take distributions by the IRS).
Years ago I worked for a small company that used class B (contingent deferred sales charge) shares. (The 1% 12b-1 fees were used to pay for the cost of the plan - common in small plans.)
The "financial advisor" who set up the plan for the company "promised" that the deferred loads would be waived. But when the company was acquired and I left (taking my plan money with me), I was charged those fees. I'm not sure if I raised any objections with the acquiring company, but it would have been hopeless in any case.

Hi Guys,
This article by author Andrew Hallam has a very simple answer to the question offered in the title of that article: an easy qualified Yes even under stressful market reversals. It's qualified because it uses past market crashes to define the severity of a downturn, and it postulates an investor who has a baseline drawdown schedule of 4% with an unwavering commitment to continue that schedule even as his portfolio diminishes in value. That may not be easy to do.
But if those constraints can be satisfied, Hallam concludes that an easily defined investment program satisfies the portfolio survival issue. Simply buy a set of low cost Index funds and stay the course. No further action is required; don't panic, don't try alternate actively managed funds.
Just buy and go away. Things couldn't be more simple. However, it's not clear to me that spending could be significantly reduced as a retirement portfolio suffers a couple of years of negative returns. It's always good to be flexible, but flexibility has its limits, especially if the food budget comes under attack.
Regardless, not reacting to every market action, and constructing a low cost Index dominated portfolio is not a bad overall strategy.
Best Regards

Ray Dalio has made a splash here over the years and his presentations are very swimmable (understandable) for the average investor.
https://youtube.com/results?sp=CANQFA%253D%253D&q=ray+dalio
Might be nice to get others to earmark their favorite gurus via you tube in this thread.

FYI: For all the talk about how bad a month September has historically been for US equities, this September surely isn’t fitting the mold. Through Monday afternoon, the S&P 500 has gained 1.4%, which is a good return for the first half of any month, let alone the month that has historically been weaker than any other month. Looking a little bit deeper, though, it should be noted that the first half of September has historically been considerably stronger than the second half of the month. The chart below shows a distribution of the median returns for every stock in the S&P 500 during the first half of September over the last ten years. As you can plainly see, well over half of the stocks in the index have seen gains during the first half of the month; 359 to be exact. Overall, the median return for each stock in the S&P 500 is 1.02% with Ulta Beauty (ULTA) leading the way higher with a median gain of 18.43%, while Advanced Auto Parts (AAP) brings up the rear falling 3.07%.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/wasnt-september-supposed-to-be-a-bad-month-for-stocks/

Professor Shiller has been saying this for several years now. Since nothing happen and the herd continues to plow forward. Haven't we all seen this before prior to dotcom and subprime bubbles?
The more pertinent question is what to do to protect the downside? Personally I have been rebalancing to other asset classes with low correlation to equity on quarterly basis. I like to hear other viewpoints.

Hard to answer not knowing your age and whether you are in the accumulation or preservation stage. This seems though like the most unloved bull market ever. As for asset classes with low correlation I would be very careful. There is an academic Pied Piper who has been preaching this approach for over a decade. First it was via collateraized commodity futures ala PCRIX/PCRDX then it was managed futures via AQMIX/QMHIX and we have seen how that has turned out. Now it's reinsurance via SRRIX which recently took a 11% hit one week. All the while that some are embracing uncorrelated assets the markets just keep hitting one new high after another. Seems the winners and those accumulating the wealth as always are the investors staying the course in plain vanilla index funds that mimic the market who don't fret about market timing.
Edit. That should have been SRRIX above not SSRIX now corrected

Hi @Sven,
I too have been more conservative within my portfolio and have been moving money left within my portfolio into more conservative asset positions due to relative high asset valuations. I have reduced the number of equity funds in my domestic equity sleeve (from six to three) along with reducing the large/mid cap sleeve (from six funds to three) and in the global growth sleeve reducing the number of funds there (from six to three) and moving a good bit of this money into mostly hybrid funds. In addition, some of this money was used to restart my CD ladder along with using some idle cash.
This rebalance (of sorts) has take place over time (last couple of years) and was not done in one setting. In addition, while I have reduced the number of equity positions I have strived to maintain good sector weightings in what I call the "Big Three Sectors" of technology, financials and heath care. In addition, overweighting the materials and utility sectors this year has, thus far, also turned out to be a positive.
The use of hybrid funds was done for multiple reasons. One, the ones I chose kick off relative good income distributions ... and, two, they usually position in the faster moving market currents of both the fixed and equity sides. Thus far, this seems to have been a good move for it has increased my income generation by about ten to fifteen percent (from where it was a year ago) while at the same time helped produced some good overall portfolio returns.
For me it has been: "So far ... So good."
Peace.
Old_Skeet

Professor Shiller has been saying this for several years now. Since nothing happen and the herd continues to plow forward. Haven't we all seen this before prior to dotcom and subprime bubbles?
The more pertinent question is what to do to protect the downside? Personally I have been rebalancing to other asset classes with low correlation to equity on quarterly basis. I like to hear other viewpoints.

Just skimmed this article (for lack of time). But it appears to be (at surface level) a thoughtful and well documented article.
-The first part of the statement is acknowledged in probably 80% (could be 100%) of the prospectuses of funds investing in any type of foreign securities to any extent. Usually it goes something like "Investing in foreign securities carries additional risks, which include, but are not limited to ... (enumeration of several risks)". So, not much new here.
- Far as I can tell, he's basing the second half of the argument on some kind of regression to mean argument - based on some kind of foreign small cap outperformance in recent years. I too subscribe to the regression principal - though the time frames involved for it to play out often last decades. A very young writer predicting today a regression back to some (lower) mean might well have grown very old before the regression actually occurs. Additionally, he seems to view foreign small-cap markets as one market. Of course they are not.
For most long term fund investors, I think one or two good international funds is a better way to go, assuming you want international exposures. Let your manager slice and dice as to various cap sizes and particular economies in which to invest. I'm probably swimming against the current here. The fund companies profit from our willingness to buy very narrowly focused funds - usually having higher levels of risk and higher expenses. And investors' relentless pursuit of every possible extra 10-cents worth of higher return helps support them.

Not sure how this has lost money over the past 3 years as it was up 25% over the past 3 years before IRMA and is still up 12.69% with essentially zero volatility (with the exception of the past 2 weeks). It also goes back to portfolio construction and that is why advisers use it. Take a look at the chart of AIG and Berkshire over that time period and then take a look at SRRIX. Volatility in those stocks is HUGE while SRRIX has next to none. It's about building a diversified portfolio where this is just one component. People pull from their portfolios over time and risk adjusted returns is most important. No client closes their eyes for 10 years and then opens them on the ten year anniversary to see how they did. How you get there day by day is most important. Modern portfolio theory.

You are completely missing the point if you look at it the way that you do. It is a 100% non-correlated asset in a portfolio that does not derive any return from the economy, politics, interest rates, etc. If you had actually looked at the return of the fund since it launched in Dec 2013 you would have seen it had beaten the global stock market over that time period with zero correlation. Sure, there is risk in the portfolio, just like in every other investment I'm sure you have, but the driver of returns are completely different than everything in your portfolio. When your stock portfolio dropped -19% from May 2015 through February 2016 Stone Ridge reinsurance was up over +8% with once again, no correlation. The fee is high certainly, but I have no idea how you can say it has "nothing particularly unique" as it is the most unique mutual fund out there. They negotiate contracts with reinsurance companies to get this exposure. Just like when you get into an auto accident and your premiums go up guess what happens when a major hurricane hits???? Premiums go up too and guess who reaps the benefits of those higher premiums???? That's right, investors in the fund. It is not an investment to day trade (nor do they let you do it anyway) - hence the high minimum so people that actually get it can purchase it, and people who do not, don't get access. It is a buy and hold strategy. There is a reason why quite a few reinsurance companies have been around over 200 years.......