>> bonafide Three Alarm Fund month ending May 2015
More sore limitations of the methods here, and the historical timescales.
What do we pay for, or want to pay for, intend to pay for, in paying a manager? It is unlikely that Charles et alia are simply too young to fully realize the value of time. But to see the answer, or one answer, just compare the performance of YAFFX with just about anything roughly similar for the last six years (good but arguably meh and not superior) and then the last seven and eight years.
Striking, those last two .
MFO, the place to go for advice on the shorter term, six years and since.

It seems to be a hybrid bucket/sleeve style portfolio but the funds are misapplied. It should be set according to years, like 1-3 years out, 4-7 years out etc.

Hi Guys, Hi Ted,
Ted, you are not alone in an overarching investment policy to Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS). A decade ago I owned most everything, mostly based on believed “expert” recommendations that accumulated over time. Today, I wholeheartedly join your KISS inspired ranks.
The wisdom of the crowd works in some circumstances and under certain conditions. But it often fails, and becomes the senselessness of the crowds. I battle to pair down my holdings and am slowly winning that challenge.
Outfits like CNBC and guys like Jim Cramer make it difficult with their frantic reporting. Guys like Jack Bogle and David Swensen get little press and even less air time because of their boring passive investment endorsements. We tend to follow the thundering herd rather than think and act independently. I suppose the behavioral wizards would call that a Confirmation bias; a bias that followers practice which could be harmful to end wealth.
Whenever I reflect on herd behavior, I recall the funny but serious bit that appeared many years ago on the old Candid Camera TV show. In that historical TV segment, a victim would get on an elevator with a group that was part of the ploy. The door would close and the in-group would unnaturally and simultaneously turn away from the door. Mostly, the victim would do the same. Herd instincts are hard to overcome.
Not only do investors become members of the herd, but so do financial journalists. Lately, the “less is more” theme has been making the news cycle rounds. CALPERS has been pruning their advisor army and expenses for several years now. It has been a lesson a long time in the learning. With so many diverse advisors, CALPERS had to be like the market itself, although with very high expenses. That’s a loser’s game.
Why do folks continue to support active fund managers? Although the odds of superior performance are definitely against them, these investors play the equivalent of the Lottery. They hope for the bigger payoff. There are a legion of sub-par performers, but there are some winners too. Hope is eternal.
I played that game for many decades, but not anymore. KISS works and is far less worrisome and is far less time intensive. Some lessons come slowly. Jason Zweig is spot on-target in this instance. And so are you, Ted.
Best Wishes.

Even Yale/Harvard endowments are not using 200 investment vehicles. Read elsewhere that Calpers failed to keep up with the expected return in recent years and thus they ventured into hedge funds without knowing the cost and benefits.

India @ Eight Month Low/China Valuation Fueled Higher
The 30-share gauge, Sensex...closed at an 8-month low of 26,425.30 -- a level not seen since October 17, 2014 .Similarly, the 50-share Nifty has stumbled by 476.05 points or 5.63 per cent in the past three weeks
Concerns that the US Fed will increase rates as early as September on better-than -expected jobs data, drought fears and RBI's cautious stance on economic recovery continued to hit the sentiments.
Foreign investors turned cautious in anticipation of a inclusion of Chinese A shares in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, which could see them move to Chinese markets, traders said Such an inclusion would have resulted in a sharp increase in China's weightage in the index, coming at an expense of other emerging markets including India.
http://profit.ndtv.com/news/market/article-sensex-ends-week-with-loss-of-343-points-771318
Against grain ,I took profits here MCSMX and added here MINDX
China’s Stock Market Value Tops $10 Trillion for First Time
by Richard Frost Updated on June 14, 2015 — 5:15 AM CDT Bloomberg
Companies with a primary listing in China are valued at $10.05 trillion, an increase of $6.7 trillion in 12 months, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The gain alone is more than the $5 trillion size of Japan’s entire stock market. The U.S. is the biggest globally, at almost $25 trillion.
No other stock market has grown as much in dollar terms over a 12-month period, as Chinese individuals piled into the nation’s equities using borrowed funds to bet gains will continue. Valuations are now the highest in five years
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-14/china-s-stock-market-value-exceeds-10-trillion-for-first-time
China's stock market value tops $10T
Jun 14 2015, 10:20 ET | By: Yoel Minkoff, SA News Editor
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2578975-chinas-stock-market-value-tops-10t?uprof=46

FYI: (The Linkster's secret for years less is more. Many of you own too many funds ! )
All too many investors still build their portfolios by bringing on board anything that seems to be working, with little regard for where it belongs or whether it duplicates what they have already.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/06/12/less-is-more-what-small-investors-can-learn-from-a-pension-giant/tab/print/

Maybe, maybe not. I'm choosing equal weight index funds and VMVFX for my future investments. I suspect I'll be reasonably satisfied in 20 years.

While I tried to make sense of this link, it seems to say that the "market" is reliant on the "bigger fool" hypothesis for further highs. I'm trying to decide if I should sell my value buys even if they are under water.
OTOH, VHCOX and VPMAX are positive for the year, and it's difficult to justify taking profits (scant, but real) there.The stocks made sense when I bought them, so they may be good in five years.
Since I'm 3 to 4 years from retirement, guess I'll sit, wait for a 10% drop, put in 50% of my cash when it happens, and decide if I like beans and rice if the market doesn't respond in 3 years.

Ya see, 'cause Royce European Smaller Companies (RISCX) could easily be mistaken for a fund that invests in kumquats, Chinese real estate, or three person Greek start-ups with $20 billion market caps (hey! it could happen) or huge companies that simply aren't mega-massive huge. Calling it Royce European Small Cap relieves all of those concerns.
With nine of Royce's 22 funds firmly in the "financially unsustainable" range ($75 million or less after 3-10 years in operation), something needs to change. I'm not sure it's always the name. RISCX been around nine years and has drawn $22 million. Odd that no comparable clarification is forthcoming for the $900 million Smaller-Companies Growth Fund (RYVPX).
David

FYI: How much time do we left in this here bull market?
Regards,
Ted
http://thereformedbroker.com/2015/06/10/two-more-years-of-bull/

FYI: Midcap stock mutual funds catch companies in their teenage to young-adult years. They've survived early small-cap challenges, but still can have impressive earnings growth. So in a real sense midcap stock mutual funds get the best of both large- and small-cap stock worlds.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTk2MzEyODQ=
Enlarged Graphic:
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WEBlv061015.jpg&docId=756596&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1198&caption=&id=756507

@MJG: There is nothing on the web, I checked, that indicates John Waggoner is leaving USA Today. I have linked his article for over fifteen years.
Regards,
Ted

401-k recently announced that ACRNX would be removed from plan & replaced. I gave up on it a few years back as I was cutting equity % age.
Derf

Are you taking price inflation into account?
Yes - I have a line item budget for the above years.
I seem to have too much month at the end of the pension check, especially as I pick up the growing costs of my healthcare.
Are your yearly decreases due to reduction in debt or some other costs that "falls off" over time?
No - just spending pattern.
Do you plan on staying away from younger women with needs, financial needs specifically?
No - they are paying their way now. They might have to pay me later.

.......................................

Hi Dex,
I’m still waiting your response to the fair questions I asked. Why do you doubt that Tom Lauricella learned during his long tenure at the WSJ?
I believe anyone learns something every single day whether he intends to or not. I also believe we likely unlearn something everyday although we don’t like to admit our misunderstandings. I see no reason to suspect that Lauricella is so unique that he avoids these learning experiences.
Rather than defending your position, you deploy the debate loser’s tactic of attacking an opponent’s position. That’s an easy task to refute in this instance.
Even the subtitle of the piece notes that “My last bit of advice: Keep the strategy simple, and the costs low”. That’s a lesson learned.
Simply look at the headlines displayed below the title. All three are examples of lessons he learned over the years.
Just about every paragraph in the article recalls some other lessons learned. He talked about the market timing scandal. He reminisced about how “… high-paid stock-fund managers, who have since struggled to post better returns than simple, low-cost index funds” have failed to better serve the investing public. He later recalled the 130/30 mutual fund debacle. These were all learning experiences.
Lauricella concluded with “…. the focus is really on long-term investing. Hopefully this column had the same message.” That too was a learning experience since both earlier investors and financial writers often concentrated on short-term results rather than long-term process consistency.
The two articles that I referenced also demonstrate that, like most of us, Tom Lauricella is a learning machine with almost daily adjustments.
Look, Tom Lauricella was making a final address to the troops in his closure article. In any concluding ceremony, it deserves the respect, the goodwill, and the common courtesy usually accorded to anyone trying to be helpful.
Please explain why you so dislike Tom Lauricella’s writings. They seemed fair and open-minded to me. I’m always anxious to learn. I suspect you are too.
In the investment marketplace, a disagreement is no clarion call for undocumented and uncivil condemnation. It’s reasonable to take opposite sides of the trade and still be friendly and even cordial.
Best Wishes.

Hi Dex,
Well I suppose your one-liner, gratuitous comment is calculated to secure some attention. But it falls miserably short if it is designed to inspire a consensus.

Hi yourself,
Please list from the OP article what he learned over the last 14 years and we can have a discussion.

Hi Guys,
Thank you all for facilitating this controversy on income growth and distribution. It is a centuries-old debate that does have a direct impact on our economy, and by easy extension to our marketplace.
Like most of us, I would prefer a more balanced income distribution for individuals or for families, or for whatever measure you wish to impose. The wealth distribution is a perennial problem with the capitalistic system. There will always be winners, but losers are also guaranteed.
I sure don’t have an answer; but neither does anyone else. We are swamped with experimental programs and ideas. Similarly we are overwhelmed with a tsunami of data. Interpreting this data is one challenge, but a zero-order issue is to present this data in an understandable, absorbable format.
Historical charts are a partial solution. Your posts motivated me to seek such charts. Here is a Link to a series that captures the many dimensions of income issues:
http://www.russellsage.org/sites/all/files/chartbook/Income and Earnings.pdf
This chartbook of 11 pages was assembled by the Russell Sage Foundation (RSF) so an agenda is suspect. But the data is credited to the U.S. Census Bureau so it should be as reliable as such data can be made.
These charts slice and dice the real income data into many categories and present both median and mean statistics over time. The data is subdivided by sex and race also.
The reference is made without commentary by RSF (which does have a viewpoint) for a purpose. You get to examine this historical record without RSF influence. Please have at it.
One obvious observation is that inequalities exist. It’s another matter entirely to judge whether these inequalities are warranted or not. Over many years the bottommost rung on the pay scale has remained relatively income flat when adjusted for inflation, while the upper rungs have gained substantially in income. Those are the facts.
These charts are terrific summaries. Have fun with the data. Please don’t shoot the messenger.
Best Wishes.

FYI: (Sorry to see him go, Tom is an outstanding financial writer !)
Regards,
Ted
http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-i-learned-in-14-years-on-the-funds-beat-1433537708

" 29 percent of such households don’t have a pension."
What is surprising is that 71% do have a pension.

If I read the article correctly, I think it claims 29% of the 50% that don't have retirement savings also don't have pensions. The percentage of all households that don't have a pension could be even higher.

Yes, that is what I'm surprised about. 71% of those that don't have retirement savings have a pension. I think that number will decrease over the years.
If a person is 55 now and they started working at 20 - that was 1980. 401Ks started to become popular then and pensions were not.

@ Dex posted "Earlier this week, the ECB chief stoked a rout in bonds after he told investors Wednesday to “get used to periods of higher volatility,”
Adding to that perception:Market Perspectives from Acropolis Posted on June 5, 2015 by David Ott
"Naturally, I headed over to our bond guys, Ryan and Cliff to see what they thought. Ryan flatly said, ‘Dave, we’re just watching volatility.’ He is absolutely right.
The chart above shows the yields on a year-to-date basis and from that perspective, yields are high. If we, as Sherlock Holmes says, widen our gaze, to one year, we can see that, in this context, yields are off of their lows but still not particularly high.....
We can see that there are wide differences between the highs and the lows, which gets back to Ryan’s point – bond yields have been volatile, but, really, there’s not much to see here.
...Of course, we’ll have to see where things go from here, but it’s far, far too soon to say that these are the higher interest rates we’ve been waiting for over the past six or eight years."
http://acrinv.com/interest-rates-rising/