I never fall in love with a fund manager or for that matter even care who he is. I see far too many who are in funds that have lagged for the past 1, 3, and 5 years (some severely) yet refuse to sell because of their confidence in the fund manager. That and the fact they can't admit they were wrong.

Hi @bee, with the kind of performance POAGX (which I've owned as well for quite a few years) has put up, who needs a "yang". I have grown to view the volatility as nice opportunities to add to my investment. To be fair, I've also rebalanced along the way so most of the time my overall investment isn't growing as quickly as it would have if I didn't do that. It's a gold fund for M* and as usual I find it utterly confusing that they can talk about their favorite active mid-cap funds without talking about POAGX, especially when they include a handful of closed funds.

This table is interesting. Using the 1928 to 2014 time period includes the negative impacts resulting from the 1929 crash and the crashes in the 30's. So, it hopefully provides a fairly good "worst case" scenario. The results support the view that including at least some stocks in an investment mix is important for most buy and hold investors even during retirement. I was surprised to see the size of the worst case losses for bonds over all holding periods as well as the frequency of losses over all those periods. That's a warning when looking forward 20 years from today! The resilience of the balanced portfolio was also impressive. It would be interesting to see how using a bond portfolio that included corporate bonds might impact the results.

FYI: Until recently we had gone several years without a double-digit decline in US stocks. For long-term investors, that length of time can lead to a false sense of security and entitlement—believing that stocks should always go up and they have a right to consistently-positive returns. But that has never been the case; if it were, long-term historical and future returns wouldn’t be as high as they have been or are expected to be. The chart below looks at the periodic returns of stocks, bonds and balanced portfolios from 1928-2014, net of inflation.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.servowealth.com/resources/articles/stock-markets-wake-call

FYI: What if stocks experience their third separate bear market in under twenty years? What would that do to the psychology of investors?
Regards,
Ted
https://theirrelevantinvestor.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/patterned-by-birth/

Ashmore is nevermore.
ECYAX (Class A)
Less than 5 years old.
AUM $100,000.
-15% (negative) return for 1 year
1.12% net ER after a 1.6% waiver
4% front load (Class A)
A foreign currency fund, it's been going head-to-head against the strong U.S. dollar.
Sign of the times.
Thanks to The Shadow for posting.

FYI: The Vanguard Group Inc., which has for years voiced skepticism about the fast rise of exotic index-investing strategies, has hired a top researcher away from one of the best-known promoters of smart beta, Research Affiliates.
Valley Forge, Pa.-based Vanguard, the largest mutual fund firm and the second-largest ETF manager, is bringing Research Affiliates analyst Denis B. Chaves to its quantitative equity group, according to the leader of that group, John Ameriks.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150908/FREE/150909935?template=printart

WHY 4% COULD FAIL
Sep 1, 2015 • Wade Pfau & Wade Dokken

The 4% rule isn't worth much. I posted this in another thread on how to estimate for retirement.
-------------------------------------------------------
Too many assumptions to go into there. Monte Carlo and others are like many rule of thumb (e.g. 4% rule) estimators - good for generalities but not good for the specific situations.
Generally, a bottoms up approach is better i.e. budget, net worth, pension, SS etc.
This is my 2015 budget own home, no debt, single person
Basic Living
House
2,117 RE Tax
2,556 HOA
489 Electric
928 Insurance
300 Misc Purchases
133 Mail Box
6,522 Subtotal House
Car
138 AAA
744 Routine Mtc.
1,164 Insurance
82 Registration
1,800 Gas
3,929 Subtotal Car
Personal Expenses
327 Income Taxes
1,200 Cash
360 Medical
340 Cell Phone
3,300 Food
600 Wine
59 Misc
396 Internet Access
300 Dining Out/Entertainment
4,029 Health Ins.
300 Clothes
- Driving Lic
11,211 Subtotal Personal Expenses
21,661 Total Basic Living
Incremental Living - 1
91 Travel Trailer Reg
492 Storage
Good Sam
583
Incremental Living - 2
6,256 Travel/Education/Etc
Misc Hobbies
6,256
6,839 Total Discretionary
28,500 Total Basic + Incremental
Let's assume I don't have any pension or SS, and no inflation for now. What do I need?
$114,000 in near cash for 4 years of expenses - this is ride out market (bond & stock downturns.
$407,143 earning 7% to get to 28,500/year expenses
$100,000 to 150,000 contingency money, if wanted, earning ???
$621,143 to 671,143 total excluding house
Does a person need all that money? Maybe not if the person will collect SS. The closer they are to collecting SS would affect that - e.g. if they are within 2 years they could have less money in near cash.
This is not meant to be a perfect example.
Now let's use Junkster's info on SS $1294 monthly - 15,528/yr
$28,500 Total Basic + Incremental
-$15,528 SS
$12,972 to be funded
$51,888 in near cash for 4 years of expenses - this is ride out market (bond & stock downturns.
$185,143 earning 7% to get to 12,972/year expenses to be funded
$100,000 to 150,000 contingency money, if wanted, earning ???
$337,031 to 357,031 total excluding house
Both of these examples are better than monte carlo and top down rule of thumb.
There are two reasons I can think of that the top down method is the most discussed:
1. Advisors use them to scare people into buying their services
2. Budgeting is boring and most don't people don't have one nor do most know where they spend their money.

Perhaps we here are already at the, a little bit "nuts" stage, to be investors and discussing this fine "art" form at a magical electronic interface with global connections.
I used to have a similar amount of fun falling into the 8 foot wide creek that flowed behind my childhood home of many years.
Take care.

I guess I'm ducking the inflation issue by saying that one can get inflation protection "for free".
If one wanted to go pure cash and account for inflation, running simulations would seem to be the easiest(?) way to do that. But no matter what number of years you came up with, there would always be some small probability of inflation being worse than the "worst case" used. That's why I preferred to duck the inflation question entirely.
This question provides yet another example of how the rich get richer. If you've got money to burn, you invest more in stocks. Worst case, you've got enough to live on. On average, the expectation return is higher than the "mattress solution". This is not an option for people who can't take a 30% risk of having a shortfall.

Just skimmed the article but the bottom line seems to be that 35 years (for a 65 year old couple) is now considered to be a conservative estimate. Meaning, more and more are expected to live past 95. I simply don't see that and feel we all overestimate how long we will live. My mom is 95 and has but one lady friend older than her and she knows zero males over 95. And trust me, being the social butterfly my mom is and has been, she has known many a people in her days.
As for the 4% or whatever withdrawal rate, doesn't the size of one's nest egg count for something? Meaning, a debt free couple with a $3,000,000 nest egg who lives half way frugally could just live off their principal and not worry about the whims of the stock and bond markets. I realize I live in a low cost/income area of the U.S but in my region a single debt free retiree gets by just fine on $36,000 annually and a couple $42,000.

That's an argument for putting it all into TIPS. Ladder them so that you can live off of the meager coupons and periodic principal (at staggered maturities). With nominal interest near zero, this is essentially your mattress, but with inflation protection.
All of which is an argument that 3.3% should be the floor for any 30 year strategy. Or 2.85% for your 35 years. (Draw 1/30th or 1/35th of principal with the rest getting 0% nominal plus inflation adjustments.)
The problem with this strategy is that there's no possibility of the portfolio lasting longer than 30 (or 35) years. Most investment strategies are designed to last at least N years, and usually longer. So you'd better depart on schedule or before.

Please give opinion on effect of I bonds when and if
interest rates rise. They are about 25% of my investments
at 82 year of age
Regards
circa33

Find an allocation that meets your risk tolerance and long-term goals, keep cash needed from the portfolio in the next 5 years in CDs, cash or short-term bonds, then turn off the financial channels & don't listen to talk radio (both of which are a waste of time that could be spent doing something positive). And remember that the vast majority of people have NO money to worry about.

This seems very strange, but I have a math question for everyone smarter than I in that area:
Once you are down to the 2% and lower SWR, is it not the case that you might as well put it all under the mattress and take out what you need till it's gone, given life expectancies? In other words, say you really can live on 20k, 2% of a million, plus some inflation, and are say 62 (trying to be worst-case or stupidest-case here). 20k a year, okay, inflated appropriately. How many years does 20k last divided into a million even if you allow for inflation? Is it less than 35? I suppose it must be. Okay, put it all into bonds.

90% equities?
My 'inner-robot' is screaming 'Danger Will Robinson'....
Someone help me out here --- I guess I just don't get the "robo-adviser" fad... Seems more like marketing the sizzle, rather than delivering the steak. These retail brokerages are demonstrating they are "doing something", so they can seem to show they are adding value. Is a robo-adviser for investors too lazy/stupid to rebalance their own portfolio? If so, is an investor who is too stupid to rebalance, someone who should be 90% exposed to the equity markets?
15-16 years ago, would Vanguard's fully human advisor have provided the exact same allocation recommendation to a 35-year-old? If so, how does adding a "robot" improve things. Frankly, I would be more concerned with any broker who suggested a 90% stock allocation in 1999 -- when it would have failed so miserably -- then invests (how much) in a robo-program which delivers the same result in the 6th year of a bull market..
By the way, are Vanguard robo-human advisers cyborgs/bionic? Are they better than the fully human advisers? Better, stronger faster?

I wonder how many fall into my category. Over the years I collected a large number of fund mostly good ones.While I would not now buy at least 10 of the funds I own I do not wish to sell for tax reasons though I would sell if they started doing badly but its more they have been mediocre(one example I will sell when the manager dies is Gabelli Asset) as I resent the management fees.A fund I certainly would not buy today is Acorn.They are fairly easy to manage since I mostly take action in Roth and 401k accounts where taxes are not a concern raising or lowering equities depending on my view of market prospects but I never take very big moves..For about two years I have been nervous about the market but the action I took in taxable accounts was to stop reinvesting dividends. I used the income to take trips, eat out more and buy i bonds when the rate was reasonable. I regret that money market funds pay little and have not purchased a CD in at least 5 years.

I find the attitude expressed in that article reminiscent of Alfred E Neuman's "What me worry?"
One of the most storied investors on Wall Street was the late Marty Zweig. Mr. Zweig was famous for admitting with great frequency, when queried about the stock market that he "was worried".
Admittedly, the stock market will do what it will, whether we worry or not. But worry is a very salutary phenomenon -- it's nature's way of focusing the mind. Consider an investment landscape without people "worrying":
1. Company management: Nothing to worry about if we miss our numbers, we don't hold costs down, or revenues decline.
2. Company auditors: Nothing to worry about if we don't catch fraudulent numbers.
3. Security analysts: Nothing to worry about if we miss the problems at a company.
4. Ratings agencies: Nothing to worry about if we wrongly characterize a firm's liquidity and solvency.
Ever more all-time highs in the stock market is not guaranteed -- at least in a timeframe relevant to individual investors. It took something like 25 years for the stock market to regain its 1929 levels. Japanese investors are still well below the highs they experienced in 1989. How do you say "no need to worry in Japanese?"
Not worrying is the enemy. Worrying is your friend.

I've had successful fund managers retire on me, but never has one died while actively managing the fund. The difference in each case has been that there was succession planning, and the retiree had some influence on choosing and training the successor.

http://www.harborfunds.com/14198.htm (HAINX manager died)
A difference between MERDX and HAINX is that Mr. Aster's death was an accident. Regardless, your point about planned succession is important - all companies, not just investment management companies, should have succession plans in place just in case someone gets run over by a bus.

A team of investment professionals with a combined total of over 22 years of working closely with Richard Aster at Aster Investment Management Company have assumed management responsibilities for the Funds. The current investment management team will continue to manage the Meridian Fund portfolios using the same investment philosophies, processes, discipline and standards that Aster Investment Management Company has consistently and faithfully maintained over many years

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/richard-f-aster-jr-passes-away-139575418.html

I was pleased to see a fund I own, Meridian Growth Legacy (MERDX), listed as one of the 20-year Great Owl Funds. It’s a great fund, and I have a lot of confidence in it.
But the original owner/manager of the fund died a few years ago. Meridian was bought by Arrowpoint Partners. The new managers, Brian Schaub and Chad Meade, were formerly with Janus. They have an investment methodology that is very different from that employed by the former owner. The fund also has a new expense structure (higher fees).
I realize the approach for selecting the Great Owl Funds doesn’t make adjustments when there is a change of managers (and I hate to be critical of the fine work on this site). Nonetheless, I think there should at least be a
n asterisk after Meridian’s name to inform readers that today’s Meridian Growth Legacy has nothing in common with the fund of 20-years ago, except for the name (and even that was changed). The original fund is certifiably dead.