@MFO Members: Its the same old story ,what have you done for me lately. In my opinion, Dr. Mark has been over rated for years besides being a pompus ass in his white suit, living the good life as the world's self-proclaimed authority on emerging markets investing.
In recent years, he has little to do with the day to day of the funds that bear his name, and has functioned mainley as a good will ambassador for Franklin Templeton.
Regards,
Ted
Mark Mobius Track Record:
http://www.trustnet.com/Managers/ManagerFactsheet.aspx?personCode=00000018SR&univ=U&print=true

@Sven. Correct. Mobius has his following from many years ago but investors today can use other cheaper funds and ETFs to accomplish the same thing. He became too expensive for the product he produced.
I did like his commercials but never invested in his funds for the same reasons you mentioned.

Our risk and return performance metrics through quarter ending June 2015 have been posted to the Search Tools, including updates to Three Alarm, Honor Roll, and Great Owl funds, and well as Dashboard of all funds profiled.

I think we need another category: Funds that will out perform in their category over the - next 5, 10, 15, 20+ years

I agree that this is not a good time to purchase a fixed immediate annuity. The calculation may be a bit different for someone (over 59.5) in the accumulation phase.
In most market environments, fixed annuities generally provide better returns than comparable CDs (albeit wth higher risk - the insurer might go bust, and much more severe "early withdrawal penalties"). Here's a Marketwatch column that says the same thing with a lot more words.
Even in this low interest rate environment, Fidelity shows a NYLife 3 year fixed annuity (with a whopping 7%+ surrender rate) yielding 1.75%. That's a few basis points higher than I can find at a credit union. Not enough of a difference to make it worthwhile - just enough to show that sound, shorter term fixed annuities can still beat CDs. (Going out five years, the current CDs seem to do better than fixed annuities from top rated insurers, and with lower surrender costs.)
That's the only reason why I could see purchasing a deferred fixed annuity now - as a CD alternative. (The reason for age 59.5 is so that there is no IRS penalty for cashing out.)

Morn'in @hank
You noted:
"Perhaps above caption/question is offered tongue-in-cheek. However, it's highly unlikely anyone sits down on the weekend and decides how to invest during the coming week. (And anyone so inclined would soon run amuck of mutual fund trading restrictions or be eaten alive by trading costs.)
So I must assume the initial post and question are intended only as a conversation starters, rather than as a serious question."
>>>The "problems" being "repaired" was tongue-in-cheek for the most part. But, moving the cash to something productive this week was serious. And, no; this would not be an over the weekend decision, but is part of the our normal watching (trends) that is a cumulative process for the investments. We already have quite a bit of money towards the various sectors of healthcare related; but may place more into this area, too.
We wouldn't run into restrictions with Fidelity for too many mutual fund trades with any money moves this week. And we have moved more towards the etf area which would not cause a trading problem, as well as the numerous etf offerings at Fidelity (Fidelity and I-shares) for broadbased sectors that are available without a commission. Worst-case is that etf trades would be $7.95 cost via online purchase.
Fidelity etf offerings
I expected some thougths, which is why I posted the equity holdings breakdown we currently are invested into. So, serious to that aspect.
Lastly, and not related to the above is that we may have a short period of time in mid-August to stimulate the Michigan economy and the initial plan is to visit Leelanau county for a few days. Have not been to this area since the early 80's. Hell, should have purchased real estate there and then. :) Anyway, you know this is a beautiful area, eh?
I snooped around online for this and that for the area, as was surprised to find so many "for sale" real estates listings for that county. About 1,000 listings for all property types, and about 140 listings for waterfront. 'Course, some of this is condo listings and also tied to a portion of Traverse City. Zillow Leelanau waterfront Appears that "some" of the listings are not in Leelanau county....a Zillow problem I guess.
Today, we are more of the "we'll rent a property for a week, versus buy a second property". We have "dirt", 1.5 acres, in Eagle Harbor; but that is "not" the west coast of Michigan; and will likely become inherited property, as we don't plan to sell; unless approached with a "offer that is too good to refuse". Tis a long way from downstate Michigan and this area has about as much traffic from Chicago and/or Minnesota, as Michigan. A much different part of Michigan from the downstate, populated areas. And as you know, too; a lot of the west coast (Lake Michigan) has property owners from the Chicago area, aside from Michigan owners over the past 100 years.
Eagle Harbor Michigan
Hey, take care; and thank you for your thoughts and time.
Catch

This is pretty simple, really. Assuming you are referring to immediate, fixed annuities, the process is sort of like Social Security or a corporate/public pension. In return for giving an insurer a sum of money, you receive an income for life. The income could be for your life only, for you and a spouse, a period certain (for at least 10, 15, etc. years even if you (and your spouse) should pass before that period is up. Depending on the interest rate used and your life expectancy, the income received will vary. Now is not a good time to give money to an insurance company for an immediate fixed annuity, since rates are really bad. We are advising clients to wait until immediate annuity rates are in the 3-4% range. That is still not great, but a lot better than they are now.
This is for immediate fixed annuities only. The income starts now. We would certainly not use deferred fixed annuities in the current interest rate environment. This guaranteed contract depends on the ability of the insurance company to remain solvent, so do your homework on the company. And I would never recommend something like VPGDX as an annuity substitute. It is a mutual fund, where you really have no guarantee of any kind. With almost 60% in stocks, you need to be able to handle a 14-15% loss in that 60% (assuming a correction will occur). So the fixed annuity is an ok option, if you are willing to give that lump sum of money to an insurance company in exchange for a guaranteed payout for your lifetime. Again, sorta like SS or a pension.

Thanks msf.
Yeah - I realize you're buying insurance with an annuity. For some reason, this "insurance" appears to carry an expensive price tag. Sometimes insurance doesn't make sense. I rarely carry any, except for legally mandated PLPD, on vehicles over 4-5 years old. (Probably not a good analogy.)
VTINX, which you linked, is an interesting fund. It's about 30/70 equity/bond, compared to TRRIX at around 40/60. I've owned the latter a number of years and am quite fond of it as a substantial long term retirement holding.
Haven't studied all your leads yet - but intend to do so. Lots of food for thought here.
A final thought: While The two funds I mention look like they would provide a steady stream of decent retirement income and offer a high degree of principal protection over many decades, there's of course no assurance of that.

@hank - I'll try to address your questions as best I can. But I would first like to point out that there are subtle (and not so subtle) differences among the various products out there.
At the 50,000 foot level, annuities and other insurance products are just that - insurance. They aim to insure (guarantee) something that you want insured (e.g. that your checks won't run out, no matter how long you live). In contrast, noninsured products provide a different but related service - managing your cash flows so that it's likely (but not guaranteed) to last as long as you do, and likely (but not guaranteed) to remain relatively constant (with or without annual increases/inflation adjustments, depending on the product).
Mutual fund companies have come up with two different types of "managed payout" products to manage your cash flow. One is designed like an annuity - to spend down after a number of years (like a "term certain only" policy). Another is designed to last in perpetuity - drawing income only and preserving principal.
As the linked-to article points out, Vanguard and Schwab provide funds of the latter type. Vanguard had problems with its three funds (designed for different levels of growth/risk and different payout levels), and combined them into a single fund VTINX. Schwab still has its three funds:SWJRX, SWKRX, SWLRX.
Fidelity's Income Replacement Funds can be found here. Regarding PIMCO, it had two funds, PIMCO Real Income 2019 and 2029. Apparently they never got much traction and were liquidated Nov 14, 2014, shortly before their manager was dismissed for improper trading.
PIMCO still seems to offer a "Real Income Strategy" if you can figure out how to participate. (The page links only to generic mutual fund and separate account pages.)
If you'd like to compare these funds with how insurance companies invest, here's a two page paper on that from the Chicago Fed, April 2013.

Lewis' link succenctly lays out three prime areas of concern with these. Agree with all.
Junkster's done a great job over recent weeks researching these and sharing his impressions.
He, msf, Bob C and some others on the board understand them far better than I do.
However, I can never get past the simple math that seems to show that they give you back over a roughly 15-year time-span (+ -) essentially all your money along with a very low rate of return (in the order of 1 or 2% compounded). Of course, it depends on how long you live. Exceeding that period produces a somewhat better rate of return.
I'm big on inflation protection. Maybe that's because my formative years budgeting & investing were during the highly inflationary 70s and 80s. That left a lasting impression. Of course, there's no assurance we'll witness anything like that again anytime soon. Still - I'd list the article's point #1 (inflation protection) as my biggest concern with these products.
Junkster's point-on about the current low interest rates pretty much torpedoing any chance for an annuity purchased today to provide an attractive return on investment. That's because the annuity company has to invest that money during your drawdown period, and there aren't a lot of attractive options right now.
I think Vanguard or some other fund provider once marketed a mutual fund which was meant to generate a modest rate of return and also provide a relatively safe monthly pay-out to retirees over time. Not an annuity in name - but having similar appeal. (Unlike an annuity, the years of payout would be finite.) Anyone know what fund that might be and whether it still exists? If it does exist, it's probably struggling against the same low-rate headwinds as any similar investment today.

Probably shouldn't be using a word like "fixed" when discussing investing markets. :)
A formal title for this, perhaps should be something like: "Wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then." Thank you, Mr. Bob Seger for this insight thought.
As to next week July 13; well, and I don't know why :), but I still feel a little twitchy about Greece getting a real short term fix.
And I suppose I should be keeping in mind that only some of China equity is trading. 'Course, this country likely has enough real capital monies to shape whatever it needs for its internal equity markets and citizens.
Ms. Yellen's note on Friday about a small bump in rates didn't seem to bother the equity markets; and Europe had a very nice day, on Friday.
Other than the above items, is this as normal as it gets for the near future.......?
Well, anyway; from recent further reductions in investment grade bond holdings, our house has about 4.35% of a portfolio cash position that will be deployed next week, or at least, more than likely next week barring major baby black swans being born. Well, that's the thought at this time, anyway.
'Course, been looking at the oversold or down trodden areas. Latin America, as an example, is still a mess, IMO; and will likely remain in the dumper for the future. Not interested in commodities at this time, with the possible exception of energy; which we have been watching for so many months. This area is still having a rough time gaining upward momentum.
For the curious (yes, we all are, eh?) our current mix (evolving over the past two years) is:
---equity, 67.4%
---investment grade bonds, 28.2%
---cash, money market, 4.4%
EQUITY breakdown
---health/bio/pharma, (mostly U.S.) 41%
---blend U.S., VTI / ITOT type, 25%
---int'l, (mostly Euro), 20%
---real estate U.S., 14%
Well, the health related stuff is still happy; and the blend equity is around +2.4% YTD and the Euro area is doing well, too. U.S. real estate has been in a funk, but has had positive moves during the past few weeks, but this area remains in the negative for the year in the -3% range, depending upon the fund. Many IG bond holdings are pretty much flat and/or slightly negative YTD.
Just a little thinking outloud, Sunday morning, not enough coffee yet..........words.
Hoping that you find your investments, and you, to be happy during this "interesting" markets period.
Take care,
Catch

FYI: Will they stick with it?
Many investors are second guessing their decision to move into international stock funds, largely at the expense of U.S. stocks, in recent years. That’s because fear is spiking about troubles in Greece and China, while the U.S. economy continues to trudge along.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/investors-in-foreign-stock-funds-are-facing-a-stress-test/2015/07/09/d02d8770-2675-11e5-b621-b55e495e9b78_story.html

What's a bank account :-)
Seriously, the only bank accounts I have are for other benefits - a local bank account ($250 balance) to get a safe deposit box and a legacy BofA eChecking account ($0) to get a 10% bonus on my credit card cash rewards.
Bill pay, ATM, checking - all out of my brokerage accounts. Merrill Lynch pioneered CMAs a third of a century ago.
Yes, you can have VG transfer money to a bank account. Every time you get a dividend from a fund, you'll need to check that it has hit your settlement account, then transfer that amount to your bank. (VG will automate transfers, but you can't set it up for a variable amount, such as the dividends from a fund.)
I have VG fund dividends deposited directly and automatically into my non-VG brokerage account (where I have full CMA features), but that's because they are in VG fund accounts, not a VG brokerage account.
BTW, there can be a benefit to using a "real" bank. Some financial institutions won't set up links to brokerages. Capital One 360 (not to be confused with Capital One) would not set up a link to Fidelity (Fidelity uses UMB as its bank for checks, but the account doesn't show up as a "real" bank). But Capital One 360 had no problem setting up a link to Schwab bank (not a Schwab brokerage account), because that is a real bank.

Hi @AndyJ
Have not checked; but just from the top of the head recall.
The 60 day rule "sale" holding period for some funds is not necessarily a Fido fee, if I recall properly. Fido, of course; does have rules like this for some of their own funds (90 days, etc.) and other vendors set similar rules for some of their funds as well.
Sidenote: we have Fido brokerage accts. which we use to comingle everything (stocks, etfs, funds). About 3 years ago I did a "boo-boo" with an electronic purchase (wrong ticker, which of course means wrong fund). I was really busy during this time and realized 2-3 days after the fact that this wasn't the fund I had planned to purchase. This fund had a 60 or 90 day (short term trading fee of .75%). I called, spoke directly with a Fido rep., explained the situation (already had the fund and didn't want more) and they reversed the transaction.........ended with thank you; and there won't be any fee. Have a nice day.
A 5 minute phone call fix.
Anyone correct me on this, if you know otherwise.
Regards,
Catch

IMHO, physical access to brokerages is overrated. At Fidelity, if I have any complex issues, it seems they always need to call the back office - something I could just as easily do without standing there waiting for the rep to talk with someone on the phone.
Both T. Rowe Price and Vanguard seem to have originally set up their brokerages as a convenience for their fund investors. Comments you read from the nineties will reflect this. VBS (Vanguard Brokerage Services) changed clearing houses several years ago (it used to be Pershing, it is now self-clearing, like Schwab, Fidelity, etc.) More recent reviews reflect this improvement.
In contrast, T. Rowe Price still uses Pershing, as does TIAA-CREF, and many smaller brokerages. I know BobC has not had kind words about Pershing. My experiences with Pershing are more mixed, but at this point I wouldn't consider Pershing a plus.
T. Rowe Price, like most brokerages, gives you more perks as your total AUM increase. (At $100K, you get free M* membership.) In contrast, Vanguard only counts Vanguard investments (Vanguard funds, Vanguard ETFs, Vanguard annuities, etc.) toward your level of service. At $1M (Flagship), they'll give you 25 free TF fund trades/year.
As a fund investor what would attract me to Vanguard is their access to some institutional class shares at lower mins than you find elsewhere (e.g. PIMCO @ $25K vs. $100K at most other brokerages).
You asked about div reinvestment. Both brokerages do, here are their pages:
Vanguard dividend reinvestment
T. Rowe Price disclosures (open the 2nd to last disclosure at the bottom of the page)

Several years ago, I tried to open an account at Vanguard so I could purchase their funds without the transaction fee that Schwab charges. Vanguard lost my application, not once, not twice, but three times...at that point, I decided to stay with Schwab.

Regarding liquidity risk, this is a reason why I (and others) suggest that an annuity be purchased only to cover essential cash flow needs, i.e. those expenses which you cannot reduce.
Reiterating one of the risks in the article cited by Lewis - inflation risk. I don't think it's as much of a risk for longevity insurance (assuming you buy enough to deal with inflation up to the point at which it starts paying), because that income stream won't go on for decades. But an immediate annuity could run for several decades, if you've got good health and luck.
Regarding insurance company risk - as a general rule of thumb, an insurance company cannot be rated higher than its sovereign's debt - thus S&P doesn't rate any insurer AAA. (S&P says that it's because they invest in - gasp - Treasuries.)
That article lists the 5 AAA insuers in 2011. That list hasn't changed much since then:
NYLife, TIAA-CREF, Knights of Columbus, Northwestern Mutual, and USAA.
(I got both that list and the quirk about sovereign debt from a TIAA-CREF rep I spoke with a few years ago; he said he had to explain to people why TIAA-CREF wasn't AAA rated anymore.)
Here's a 2014 list - it looks like Fitch downgraded USAA to Aa1 from Aaa (no other ratings agency made a change), otheriwse, all the usual suspects are still top rated. It also has Berkshire Hathaway and Gen Re in this top group.
Any of these insurers IMHO would be fine. I especially like TIAA-CREF because unlike the other insurers, it does not have a separate subsidiary in NY to comply with the more stringent NYS reserve requirements. I believe you get that same higher standard across all 50 states with this insurer.

I like Faber and find him highly amusing (who else has responded to the question on CNBC of how you should allocate assets with "it depends on how many girlfriends you have"?)
I hope that there is not another 2008.
That said, this is my honest view:
That if it looks like we may be heading in that direction, the Fed will bail out Radio Shack (after the fact), Shake Shack and even Shaq.
They will try every voodoo economic BS tactic left. You will see QE4, you will see NIRP. Heck, a ban on physical cash so that no one can escape NIRP wouldn't surprise me. Every trick in the book will be used - you think that what's going on in Shanghai in terms of banning short selling and other "rules" can't be put into place here, at least to some degree?
They will bail out, print and nationalize like there's no tomorrow - if it comes to that, because the alternative if we have another 2008 and go back to square one is this:
All of the attitude by the Fed of "don't audit us, don't question us and no we aren't going to respond to an investigation about the Fed leaking information" will be ignored in a bleeping hurry.
If we have had QE1, 2 and 3 and operation twist and all other manner of financial engineering BS and we find ourselves back at square one after another 2008-style situation, Janet and company will have a lot of 'splaining to do (and they don't seem fond of that) because the anger will be immense and Congress will ab-so-lutely point the finger at them.
You think people were mad at Wall Street after 2008? LOL, at the very least twice as bad if it happens again.
If we have another 2008, in some ways it'll be game over. There will be tumbleweeds hosting CNBC because no one will be watching. The rejection of stocks by the public will be extraordinary - you're not going to get anyone back in and probably for years. The Fed will be too busy in hearings to do much. Attempts to push the public back into risk assets after that will be likely met with legitimate anger (or at least a collective middle finger.)
So yeah, I believe that there is a sense of "reflate or bust" desperation with governments around the world who don't want another 2008 because of all of the many things that would imply.
Perhaps I'll be wrong but I continue to fear that this time around if there's a crisis you will want to own assets instead of sitting in cash or bonds.
We'll see.
---
Someone posted this at ZH in the comments section years ago and I don't disagree with the gist of it, although I'm not as negative and think the how/why (I don't think they'd print like there's no tomorrow because this is the end, but because they believe another 2008 would be some degree of "game over") is different. I don't think another 2008 would be "the end", but I perhaps can see where it would be the end of the global economy as we know it today. Perhaps this is "the ultimate bubble" for use of a better term and what we look like as a global economy on the other side of it will be very different.
"Hope you didn't put much money on that bet, Dawg. These fuckers are going to print hard enough to wake the dead. They'll print like mo'fos, print like mad men, print like fly pimps. Print until their eyes bleed.
They will print via the swaps, via bank bailouts and mergers, via fixed Treasury yields, via real honest-to-God negative interest rates, via loans to banks on no collateral, via payroll tax reductions, and in the end via actual fiat paper instruments which they might very well drop in bails from actual mutherfucking helicopters.
They will not give two figs what anyone thinks.
Here is why.
Because this is the Goddamned end of it my friend. There is no accounting beyond this point. There will be no history of it. No one to take notes of rates of exchange, or of the graft and violence, nobody to worry about the deficit or the GDP or the national debt of any nation large or small under the blazing Goddamned sun.
End. Of. It. Does anyone bitch about how Rome totally debased their coinage at the end? Hell no. But whoever did it had enough to hand and grabbed some land with a nice vineyard and sat back and waited for the Middle Ages to start 700 years further on.
And that's what a singularity is about. Anything that passes through is striped of all meaning. Nothing we think is important now will remain so beyond the event horizon. Nobody will remember, nobody will write about it, nobody will be held to any standard. Ever for ever."

I remember reading an article years ago about research indicating that women investors tended to be more patient than male ones who were more aggressive and overly-eager to prove themselves. It would fit the psychological stereotypes at least that women need to be more patient to put up with their children and their husbands. If you're a believer in buy and hold investing--and the studies indicate it is a superior strategy--then women should be superior investors. Then again there are some aggressively run funds that have performed well, but they tend to be more volatile and prone to blowups. Think of that classic CGM Focus and Ken Heebner. If ever there was an alpha male investment strategy, it was his. Meanwhile, Susan Byrne at Westwood had a more patient approach, trying to hit singles and doubles instead of home runs.

Faber's macro commentaries make sense (and I agree w/some of them), but he's been calling for a catastrophic drop for so long (YEARS!) that people now dismiss him as a perma-bear whenever he's quoted/interviewed in the financial media and/or tells people to adjust their allocations.
But, like most pundits, despite "being wrong" for YEARS when The Big One(tm) does come, whenever it comes, I'm sure he'll be right out there saying he-told-us-so.
Frankly I think the 'generational buying opportunity' was not 2008-09, but will occur at the bottom of the NEXT global market crash ... which I agree w/Faber will happen in the forseeable future. I remain ready to pounce, but am also quite comfortably positioned in the markets and will remain there for a looooong time to come.

Here's Microsoft's Windows Lifecycle (support) page:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle
Windows 7 "mainstream" support has already ended. "Extended support" runs to 1/14/2020. As near as I can figure, that means primarily security patches.
Microsoft's policy is to provide at least 5 years mainstream support and an additional 5 years extended support. The way the policy is worded, it sounds like Microsoft is guaranteeing at least seven years support after the next version is released. So even if you buy the current release a day before the next release comes out, you're guaranteed at least seven years of support.
Not that I'm a Microsoft lover, but that sounds like a reasonable amount of time. A company cannot dedicate resources forever to support a system that's three versions old. And machines are usually replaced in less time than that.