I believe Target (allocation) funds can be used quite effectively to not only get you to "work retirement", but also as a tool to get you through until your "earthly retirement" aka death. Something I have shared before and I am still refining are these investment thoughts:
bee's Target Date Strategy:
I've often thought there are really two target dates, one targeting retirement from "work" and one targeting retirement from "earth".
Fully funding a retirement dated (glide path allocation) fund makes perfect sense. As a retirement dated fund glides towards its maturity date it attempts to provide a smooth landing for your investment at that date.
Effectively, at "work" retirement, an investor would have most of their assets in low risk investments. This might be helpful if the markets happens to severely correct in the first 5 years of retirement, but this portfolio must also be re-allocated the prepare for longevity risk (your money needs to last as long as you do). So, during the first few years of retirement a portion of this retirement portfolio needs to reallocated into investments that attempt to achieve portfolio longevity in retirement.
In a sense, a retiree could reallocate a percentage of their retirement portfolio into target date funds that target the incremental need to reach "earthly" retirement. Much like laddering CDs, a retiree could ladder target date funds in 5 year increments that will be used for spending if the retiree is lucky enough to reach that target date.
I could envision a retiree owning 6 separate retirement dated funds, each maturing 5 years further into the future (funding years 65-95 or 70-100) and each needing differing amounts of initial funding based on financial needs during that 5 year period in the future. The last fund matures on your date of death and pays your funeral expenses.
Sorry if some of this sounds a bit morbid to the reader.

When you sell shares, you realize a capital gain or loss regardless of how you're paid (in cash or in stocks that Sequoia gave you instead). If you get stocks, their basis is what you "paid" for them, i.e. the value of the Sequoia shares you just traded in. So if you flip those stocks immediately, you have no additional gain or loss.
So where did the gain on the underlying stocks go? The general rule is when a company (such as a mutual fund) sells stocks it owns, it recognizes a gain or loss. It might sell stocks to raise cash for your redemption. Or it might "sell" you those stocks directly (redemption in-kind) to meet your redemption request.
But there's one special line in the tax code (IRC 852(b)(6)) that says this general rule doesn't apply to redemptions in kind for registered investment companies (mutual funds, ETFs). Poof! No cap gain - no gain passed through to you, no gain for the fund.
Your "on the other hand" description is right, but usually not as much of a problem as it might appear. If you've owned the shares awhile, your shares may have gone up 25% since you bought them, while the fund is planning a 20% gains distribution. If you were to redeem your shares, you would wind up recognizing a 25% gain, rather than get the 20% distribution. So you might grin and bear it - at least you're not recognizing more gain than you actually made with the investment. Expensive, but not really unfair.
Investors who held their shares for fewer years (say their share prices are up 15%) are the ones who would be inclined to sell. Otherwise, they would recognize gains greater than what they'd made in the fund. As you wrote, that means that more gains would be distributed to the remaining shareholders. So instead of a 20% distribution, the fund might wind up making a 23% distribution. Still not enough to induce you (with 25% share appreciation) to sell, but there could be a few other shareholders with 22% appreciation who would now decide to sell. Ultimately, an equilibrium point is reached.
All this assumes people are astute about their tax situations and act rationally. That's your laugh for the day.

One thing I really like about a couple of Skeet's funds is that they are load funds from load families. Not just ordinary load families, they're run by insurance companies. And they merit consideration.
Principal offers some pretty solid funds through retirement plans, but they're also available at the retail level, NTF, at some brokerages.
Here's the Fidelity NTF listing for PMDAX (it's a Fidelity fund pick).
Don't get thrown off by its 3* rating; that's because M* ratings incorporate the impact of loads, and M* overweights that impact for funds with shorter lifetimes (this fund is rated on its three year record only). Instead, see it as a 4* noload fund:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PMDAX.lw/quote.html
I'm less familiar with SunAmerica - I tend to associate it with VAs, and apparently it's now (since 1998) a subsidiary of AIG. Talk about queasy feelings. Yet the fund seems solid. You can purchase it NTF through TDAmeritrade.
American Century funds, like funds from PIMCO and a variety of other families are sold both load and noload. The noload version of TWEAX is TWEIX. (When one drops the load, whether on TWEAX or TWEIX, the fund gets bumped to a 5 star fund; TWEIX is less expensive as it doesn't have a 12b-1 fee.) One downside is that it's not particularly tax efficient, even allowing for its emphasis on dividends.
LCEIX (now LCEAX) has been on my short list for years, in part because it is more tax-efficient than some of the other funds that pop out in the LCV space.
FWIW, Fidelity added several families (including Invesco) to its load waiver list about three years ago. Here's my post on the Fidelity waivers:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/6048/fidelity-waives-loads

Yikes - Just when I thought these retirement options couldn't get any more complicated ... :)
Nice summary msf.
There seem to be (from my cursory reading) about an equal number of proponents of the Roth vrs. Traditional IRA. With the traditional you put a lot more money to work right away (since it's pre-tax money). With the Roth you make out like a bandit during the withdrawal years (unless the rules change).
Both good ways to invest. Whatever plan is selected, through diligent online research, one can uncover the fine points. I'd encourage Hawk's daughter to do this, regardless of plan. It took me 6-7 years after I did the first (of 3) Roth conversions to fully understand all the restrictions and "ins & outs." Really complex rules - and even the experts sometimes offer seemingly contradictory answers.
Ah-em ... if I may say ... We 403B people paved the road for the later 401K. Originally the deferred compensation concept was designed for public employees. The private sector plans came after. An interesting (not widely known) quirk in the early 403B rules allowed us to transfer money out to other custodians while we were still employed. Uncle Sam later plugged that loophole - I believe sometime after 2000. Nice while it lasted.

@Hawkmountain: One nice thing about a roth is that if she holds it for 5 years, she can use up to $10,000 (one time limit) towards the purchase of her first home. Admittedly, you lose the compounding of that money if you withdraw it, but for some, it's a nice option to have. You can also withdraw principal at any time for the same purchase.

Hi Hawk,
(Added late): Here's a substantive publication explaining the difference between deduction and reduction. http://www.ofm.wa.gov/policy/25.50.htm. It's been too long since I contributed to a 403B (20 years), but some of the fog is clearing as I read this. A 403B actually represents deferred income. That's why you're able to defer paying taxes on the income. A Roth, by contrast, is funded with current income on which taxes must be paid up front.
Psychologically, I suspect she may be more apt to stick with a pre-tax workplace plan (like a 403B) - and they're fine long-term investments. As I understand Roths, the after-tax contribution portion can be withdrawn at any time. There's a lot more hoops to jump through with the pre-tax contributions.
But I really like Roths. Tax free compounding and tax free withdrawals are hard to beat. Tough call. Just be sure that either way she socs the $$ away and leaves it alone during the working years. One caveat with Roths is that it's a pretty generous tax provision and so the law could potentially be altered in the future to where they'll find some way to tax them.
While there's good arguments on both sides, I'd think that in most cases over very long periods one comes out dollars ahead with the Roth. But it's not a slam-dunk. Too much depends on the tax bracket you're in when contributing and again when you're withdrawing.
One source which attempts to compare the benefits of Roths vs Traditional plans: http://www.401khelpcenter.com/401k/whitehouse_roth.html#.VyLHAtT3aK0

Well, I never heard of 'reduction' until now. WDIK? But the S and DIL want to know which to pick for her. She's 29, teaches at a college and now after two years is eligible to contribute.
Should she pony up, I suppose like a Roth, or do deferred like I suppose a 403B?
Your thoughts are always welcome.
best,hawk

Is Schwab going to stop selling load funds from Franklin Templeton (e.g. TPINX) or Oppenheimer (e.g. OIGAX)? Of course not, even though these are not only load funds, but load classes - if you go to E*Trade, they'll gladly sell you the Templeton fund or the Oppenheimer fund with a load.
Schwab is only going to stop selling a share class if it can't negotiate a load waiver. This is hardly generosity on Schwab's part. It typically get 40 basis points per year for NTF shares sold, and (admittedly I haven't checked) less for load shares. If you're working with an adviser, the adviser gets the lion's share of the front load, so Schwab comes out on the short end of the stick by selling the funds with a load (as opposed to load-waived).
Schwab (unlike Fidelity) used to include TF funds as well as NTF funds in its select lists. It stopped that years ago - now it tries to drive investors to its most profitable share classes. I don't see a difference between this and the supposed conflict of interest that advisors have in selling load funds. Except that soon (at least for retirement accounts) advisors will be held to a fiduciary standard that Schwab can avoid.
Let's look at those load-waived classes. Why would I go to Schwab and buy a 12b-1 laden (dare I say loaded) share class when TGBAX can be purchased elsewhere, albeit with a TF? That higher ER is just skimming money from the fund to pay Schwab for shelf space.
On general principle, I for one don't see anything positive about being offered less choice. But it makes for great PR, and evokes the predictable hurrahs.

I'm a little late to this discussion, but here goes:
1. For domestic stocks, use a low-cost index fund/ETF as a core hold. Then, if you want to "explore", search for talented management (team) that runs a fairly concentrated portfolio for a reasonable cost. Another option would be to add a sector fund/ETF or something that does not mimic the index (maybe something like SPHD or something that emphasizes volatility or dividends, for example).
2. For international stocks, there is a lot more disparity, and indexing is not a clear winner, unless you don't want to take the time to research active funds. Fees may be a bit higher for actively-managed funds here, so pay attention to out-performance net of fees.
3. For bonds, understand that the past 10 years will not be repeated over the next 10 years. That being the case, fund expenses are even more critical.
4. If returns, in general, will be lower over the next few years (which some smart people believe), costs take on a bigger part of the screening process.
5. If you are buying actively-managed funds, remember the most important consideration is who runs the strategy and what their record is. You are not buying an index; you are hiring a manager. Do your homework, and do not skimp on this step.
6. In taxable accounts, remember the importance of tax efficiency. That means taxable distributions can sometimes be deadly. Use funds that tend to have these in your retirement accounts, where taxation is deferred.

@ Charles & MFO Members: IBD Slant
“There definitely has been, over the past 15 or so years, a big move away from load shares,” said Scott Cooley, director of policy research for Morningstar Inc. “Fifteen years ago, load funds were more than 40% of mutual fund assets. Now they’re down to 20%. The industry has been growing, but load funds have lost market share.”
Schwab insisted that the move is a response to dwindling interest by shareholders in paying loads, not a response to a recent Department of Labor (DOL) rule that tightens restrictions on advisor conflicts of interest and requires advisors to disclose how they’re paid.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/charles-schwabs-cutback-on-load-mutual-funds-reinforces-trend/

@Hank- What an amazing coincidence... my very first car was a "previously owned" '56 Plymouth! My parents didn't have a car, so I had to learn to drive on my own. In 1959 the Coast Guard assigned me to a Loran Station on the lonely Northern CA coast and there was no Greyhound bus service. So I had to buy a car and learn to drive on the then very rugged coastal Hwy 1.
My learning experience ended the useful service life of most of the Plymouth's fenders. Fortunately, Yellow Cab had used a large fleet of these cars, and SF junkyards had a good supply of yellow fenders. After a couple of years that car was quite a sight... blue and black with three bright yellow fenders. It did have the advantage that other drivers give me a wide margin of clearance.
I shared your father's experience... on one trip up to the Loran station at Point Arena I was on a back road in the middle of nowhere when the engine lost oil pressure, with the usual ruinous results. Fortunately some kindly folks eventually came along and took me the remainder of the way to Point Arena, in their spiffy Nash sedan.

1956 Plymouth (Not Mine!)

@Hank- Your experiences and mine are almost identical with respect to when we started and how we started.
I absolutely agree with your comment "While I loath front-loads and the commission-based reps who peddle them, I benefitted greatly from his experience. In particular, I became more acclimated to taking a degree of risk in pursuit of a higher return than what I observe in many first-time investors who don't have the benefit of an advisor. So, the load may have been worth it."
Exactly.

@OJ - Thanks. Nice to know I'm in good company!
Of course in the early 70s mutual funds weren't as widely known or used as today. Unless raised in a family accustomed to investing, you likely benefitted from a bit of hand-holding as the "service" rendered by commission-based brokers was sometimes called.
Brings to mind a line from a story I read years ago: "Father was a man of substance, but the substance was seldom cash". Among the investments I recall my Dad making was a previously owned '56 Plymouth that rarely ran - which he traded in on a '59 Edsel. Need I say more? :)
Regards

Apple took a more than $40 billion hit today after reporting its second-quarter earnings — and it was bleak. Shares of Apple were down more than 8 percent in after-hours trading at one point today.
Why Apple’s stock fell off a cliff today
Posted 4 hours ago by Matthew Lynley © 2013-2016 AOL Inc. All rights reserved.
What all this means
All this, taken together, represents a huge miss for Apple. This is a company that has shown Wall Street time and time again that it is one of the strongest growth drivers in the world. And now, for the first time in 13 years, Apple is showing that its growth engine is slowing down.
Wall Street rewards profitability, it rewards companies when they beat expectations. But for massive companies like Apple, growth is everything — and Apple is showing that it just isn’t growing any more for the time being. So all Apple’s new products and search for new innovations for its existing ones all make new sense: people are buying fewer phones, fewer tablets than they used to, and Apple needs to find new ways to continue to grow.
Slideshow Topics
Apple amasses an even greater cash pile
Apple services revenue continues to grow, Apple Music hits 13 million subscribers
Apple's "other products" also drops quarter-over-quarter
The Mac fails to deliver
The iPad shows surprise strength
Apple once again posts weak guidance numbers
Greater China drops off a cliff
Apple's stock tanks
As a result of all this, Apple shares are down more than 8 percent in extended trading. Investors are punishing the company for showing that it is no longer able to continue to grow at the significant rate (since iPhone intro)
But iPhone sales are down significantly from the year ago
The iPhone beats expectations — but only barely
Apple's revenue drops for the first time in 13 years
http://techcrunch.com/gallery/everything-you-need-to-know-about-apples-second-quarter-results/slide/1/

@davidmoran
Looks like we both started investing around 1971 (45 years ago). Mine was a 403B plan with a 4.17% front load invested in TEMWX. A great fund back than. I knew even less of investing than than I know today. But the fund prospered over the 15-20 years I owned it. Probably shouldn't have left Templeton, but a lot of friction developed between the "advisor" and me when I started investing on my own with T. Rowe Price - especially when I transferred some of the $$ out of Templeton on my own. (Pretty sure he was collecting some type of back load).
While I loath front-loads and the commission-based reps who peddle them, I benefitted greatly from his experience. In particular, I became more acclimated to taking a degree of risk in pursuit of a higher return than what I observe in many first-time investors who don't have the benefit of an advisor. So, the load may have been worth it.
I don't have time to look up all 7,000+ funds available to U.S. investors at 5 different sites search of that one on which they all disagree. But it's out there somewhere. :)
Good luck.

Interesting - but for global small-cap investing I'll stick with my Grandeur Peak funds. I've owned SSSFX for over a decade and concentrated funds like this are tough to own - be prepared to be the worst performer for a couple of years then the best performer for a couple of years.
Ben - I agree about the global investors part - I would think that would require some significant firm analyst/research buildout.

Why own FPACX? Well, in 2006 when I bought FPACX, my crystal ball was broken and remains broken to this day. Actually, FPACX and VWELX have been pretty comparable up until recently and, having reinvested dividends, FPACX has been a good investment.
What does not work for me is to thrash around from one fund to another. But, out of curiosity, I would like to know what fund should be bought now that in 10 years will be a general winner.

Reference was made the other day to Source Capital (SOR) in regards to Mr. Braham's article in Barron's about CEF's. Steve Romick and his FPA team took over the fund in Fall, 2015. They must have done some real housecleaning of the portfolio resulting in a huge distribution to shareholders. Here's a quotation from a fund document "apologizing" for how long it took for the transactions to settle:
"Los Angeles (April 22, 2016) – Source Capital, Inc. (the “Fund”) is pleased to announce that the Agent for its Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the “Plan”), American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, completed its purchases of the Fund’s common stock for shareholders participating in the Plan with respect to the distributions announced on February 8, 2016. As you may recall, on March 15, 2016, the Fund paid the $33.65 long-term capital gain distribution combined with the $0.41 regular quarterly distribution announced on February 8, 2016. Due to the large combined size of these distributions and the commensurate number of shares that were required to be purchased for Plan participants, it took the Agent several weeks to complete the share purchases. The Agent will be posting the reinvested shares to your account by Monday April 25, 2016 and statements will be mailed shortly thereafter. Thank you for your patience."
I guess this is one way to deal with the persistent discount which averaged -9.57% for the past three years. It's now -1.69%. Fund price was a bit north of $65 at the time of the distribution. Now it's about $39. I wonder if SOR is going to be a clone of FPACX, albeit on a much smaller scale.

I held it until a couple of years ago, and since 1998. Fwiw.

Very few investors have owned FPACX for the past 20 years. According to BrightScope.com, FPACX had only $37M in AUM on 12/31/1996, and only $1.4B on 12/31/2006. As for VWELX, it had $16B in AUM on 12/31/1996 and $29.6B on 12/31/2006. So for me, the 20 year performance of FPACX is meaningless as its current $17B in AUM bears no resemblance to the tiny fund it was 20 years ago. I would like to know if anybody on this forum has owned FPACX continuously for the past 20 years ?
The keys to the excellent performance of VWELX and VWINX have been solid stock and bond selections, low portfolio turnovers, very low exposures to cash, and very low expense ratios. FPACX on the other hand, has had comparably low portfolio turnover, but has tried to time the market with relatively large cash positions. Also, FPACX has had much higher expense ratios since inception, and has not changed its 1% management fee in recent memory despite ballooning assets.
As I have stated previously, I would prefer a low cost combination of VWIAX and VYM over FPACX going forward.
Kevin

Besides Lipper, what vehicle do you use to screen for your funds? Do you use a search engine?
How do you determine if a fund is "diversified income" or "between income and balanced", etcetera when searching?? In other words, what do you search on to determine those type of details/characteristics?

@mcmarasco: Good questions. Let me premise by saying that I think allocation, appropriate diversification and an ability to stick with a plan over time influence long term results more than does selecting the very best fund in every category. That may seem a bit sacrilegous, as MFO is highly successful at evaluating funds to the unteenth degree. But I haven't the time or temperament to research continuously and would probably view any performance record under 10 years as suspect anyway.
Most funds I've held 10 years or longer, and some for more than 20. ("Likeable enough" is a phrase that leaps to mind.) Some I first learned of at Fund Alarm or MFO. Some were featured in Barrons. As a long time investor with T. Rowe and Oppenheimer, I uncovered some reading their web sites. An important second step was looking up funds (after they came to my attention) at Lipper, M*, MaxFunds, FundMojo and similar sites to garner their overall impressions. Finally, I studied the Prospectus and recent fund reports to learn how the manager invests (particularily the current holdings). The Prospectus details performance records over the last 10 successive years, helpful in assessing risk.
Re: different categories (balanced, diversified income, etc.), there's a lot of discretion involved. In some cases it was a matter of plugging existing funds into the plan as it evolved. DODBX has been my balanced fund for a long time. RPSIX, a fund of funds, works well for diversified income. I'll occasionally make small tactical changes within the buy and hold area. Added a precious metals fund last September to the inflation sensitive portion but sold it a few weeks ago after it rose 40+% in 7 months (substituting PRAFX in its place). 35% of the international bond segment is now in a Local Currency/EM bond fund - but that's considered semi-speculative and will be vacated at some point.
Thanks for the chance to follow up. I've read your posts before @mcmarasco and know you not to be a novice (far from it). So I suspect there may be a degree of devil's advocacy in the question you pose. :)
Regards