We've been using AC for over 20 years, and never had an idea of this. Agree with VF re genuine!

FYI: Most corporate philanthropy follows a conservative and predictable course, but at American Century Investments, a $152 billion-asset mutual fund firm in Kansas City, Mo., charitable giving has a whole new level of meaning and commitment. In 2000, American Century’s founder, Jim Stowers, broke ground on the Stowers Institute for Medical Research. He endowed the organization over the years with $2 billion, including a chunk of his wealth and, crucially, a 40% share of his mutual fund company. Since then, the medical institute has received $1.1 billion in dividends from American Century.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/penta/2015/08/28/how-american-century-investments-funds-science/tab/print/

Sure would have been nice to include some evidence in support of that claim. Barry's evidence seems to come down to two things. First, computerized selling created Monday morning's disconnect between price and value. SBUX was down 22%. Some ETFs were down 30%. Second, he links to an article from January 2012 on the theme "sure has been quiet around here lately." Sadly, neither of those two bits of information (nor the fact that hedge funds were poorly allocated and that CNBC's ratings suck) support the claim that mom 'n' pop are finally cool, steely creatures.
The evidence he offers that folks are buying more ETFs actually points in the opposite direction (the "T" is for "Trading" and evidence I've seen suggests that people who possess trading vehicles, well, trade them). The evidence that TD Ameritrade froze up and that Vanguard had to do the "all hands on deck" thing to cover incoming calls suggests that mom 'n' were on the phone and at their keyboards . The WSJ reports that Tuesday's stock fund redemptions were the greatest in eight years.
I'd really like the headline to be true. I'm just not sure that I've seen the evidence to substantiate it.
David

Michael...if you like the idea of divi payors, pay close attention to what Scott recommends for reits...in your deferred account. Always do your own research, but it's worked nicely for me. That's a nice addition to a portfolio.

Personally in regards to real estate, things that come to mind in the moment - may be others, but just throwing some things out... as noted above, always do your own research.
No particular order:
1. Starwood Property (STWD) Somewhat dull, excellent management, not going to be a home run ever but high income that I have a degree of confidence will remain stable and grow. Will benefit from rising rates and the presentation on the company's website has outlined how much they will benefit.
2. Ventas (VTR) Has been obliterated, but high-quality healthcare REIT that is somewhat cheaper in the literal sense now after they did a spin-off. I'm not against the major names in healthcare REITs, but feel Ventas is particularly high quality.
3. Kennedy Wilson (KW). Not much of a yield, but interesting integrated real estate company (not a REIT) that owns real estate and provides services (auctions, etc.) Somewhat volatile. Famed investor Prem Watsa's Fairfax Financial had a large stake in Kennedy Wilson (although I believe a significant amount and possibly all of it is convertible preferred) as of recently, I'm not sure what the stake is at this point. From the end of 2014 letter: "We have invested $629 million in real estate investments with Kennedy Wilson over the last five years. Through
refinancings, sale of some loan portfolios and gains on hedging contracts on Japanese yen, we have received
distributions of $465 million. Our total net cash investment in real estate investments with Kennedy Wilson is
therefore now $164 million, and that investment is probably worth about $350 million. We have yet to sell though,
while our cash flow return of 11.2% is very acceptable. Also, we continue to own 10.7% of Kennedy Wilson
(11.5 million shares): our cost was $11.90 per share, and the shares are currently trading at $26.19."
--
4. Equity Lifestyle Properties (ELS). Sam Zell chaired REIT that is heavily into RV/campground/retirement communities. Lots of waterfront/near water land. Compelling (while not everyone is going to be into RVs, where the land is is the thing) but not cheap at all and not a great dividend. Still, unique and worth having on radar.
I'm trying to post the rest of this but it's not letting me, I keep getting an error.

"This sage advice smacked me in the face Tuesday night, coming from a 20-year Wall Street trading veteran. After the craziness of the previous few trading days, he emailed to ask if I wanted to grab a drink. So we did."
1. Does the author identify the 20-year Wall Street veteran? Oldest trick in the (journalistic) book is fabricating interviews with presumed knowledgable individuals as a way of making your own conclusions more palatable to readers.
2. Note that he arrived at these conclusions over a drink(s). Booze usually makes me smarter too.
3. The title of the article is ludicrous on the surface. I've been investing, reading and following markets for at least 40 years. Still haven't learned everything I need to know.

FYI: (I will link interview early Saturday morning when it becomes available for free.)
Regards,
Ted
August 27, 2015
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
Most of the top rated money managers we interview on WEALTHTRACK are what are called “bottom up” investors, they build their portfolios one security at a time, stock by stock, bond by bond by carefully analyzing the fundamentals of the security itself, the company it represents, the business it’s in, and the customers it serves.
This week’s guest, Brian Singer, takes a different approach. He is what is known as a
macro investor. Singer is Portfolio Manager of the William Blair Macro Allocation Fund which he and his team launched when they joined William Blair in late 2011.
The Macro Allocation Fund is rated five-star by Morningstar and has outperformed its Multialternative category handily over the last three years with over 9% annualized returns.
Prior to joining William Blair, Singer was the head of investment strategies at his namesake firm, Singer Partners and prior to that was head of global investment solutions and Americas chief investment officer for UBS Global Asset Management.
Singer’s top down approach doesn’t involve choosing individual securities. It does mean actively managing across asset classes, geographies, currencies and risk themes.
We’ll find out why he strongly believes that macro matters for individual investors. He will also share his “One Investment” idea for a long-term, diversified portfolio.
As usual, the show will air on Public Television this Friday and over the weekend. You can check your local listings here. If it’s easier for you to watch the show online, it’s available to our PREMIUM viewers right now. Otherwise, it will be available on our website over the weekend. In our EXTRA feature, you can also see our exclusive online interview with Singer about his positive take on Bitcoin!
Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and productive one.
Best Regards,
Consuelo

@heezsafe, thanks for the video. Will watch it later. Here is my take on OSTIX. Osterweis is a conservative firm who invest much of the old money in the Bay area for a long time. OSTIX has the flexibility to invest in many bond sectors. Kaufman's team chose the higher quality end of high yield bonds based on the best balance between risk and return as part of the portfolio construct. Noted that most are rated in B quality, little in C and below. Duration has been shorten in recent years to anticipate the impact of future rate hike. According to M* X-ray, there is little overlap between OSTIX's individual bond holdings comparing to that of the high yield ETFs such as JNK or HYG. While there are many oil driller bonds in the high yield sector and many will likely to default due to the declining oil prices, but OSTIX has none of these bonds. In addition, the double digit cash position reflects their risk adverse nature in today's market condition. In other times the cash position are in single digits. Of course, some of these bonds are thinly traded and difficult to price in stress times that reflect longer recovery period as David eluded to. Loomis Sayles Bond fund also experienced the liquidity issue in 2008, but it rebounded strongly in 2009. Dan Fuss gave an excellent interview in Wealth Track about a year ago discussing this issue. Overall OSTIX is an excellent multi-sector fund for conservative investors who seek flexible mandate and skillful management team.

FYI: Here are four days from the past 15 years that taught some harsh lessons—and a guess at the lessons investors will learn this time.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2015/08/27/5-days-that-taught-investors-all-they-need-to-know/

"As an FYI...If I had things to do over again, I would have started earlier with my income sleeve consisting of dividend paying stocks. Even holding things like JNJ, PAYX, AEP as examples for the last 5 years, I have been astounded with the power of compounding dividends....and when stocks are down, is the perfect time to buy the dividend payers. That's a hint, BTW."
I'll second this....
"Hindsight is always 20-20. No one can predict the future. Make decisions in the present and be at peace with yourself they are the right ones"
...and this.
----
Most of what I own are in individual names, but there are also some mutual funds and a couple of other things, like RIT Capital Partners (http://www.ritcap.com/our-team)
For me, investing is largely a mixture of income and growth, with names that I find attractive/fall into themes that I'm interested or have other aspects that I find compelling. As I've noted before, I particularly like tangible assets (railroads, infrastructure, real estate) and needs (healthcare being a core focus there, along with things like Ecolab.)
There are large dividend payers (Starwood Property, Blackstone, etc), medium dividend payers and small dividend payers that will hopefully grow the dividend over time.
I do feel very strongly about what I consider a portfolio of best ideas. Oddly, I find owning individual names that I have a strong thesis about less stressful than owning funds because there is that connection and thesis.
Personally, while a day like Monday was disappointing and a bummer, with mostly individual names that I consider a collection of "best ideas" (and my best ideas are not going to be someone else's and that's fine), I wasn't like....

.... because I don't plan on selling these names or trying to time them (and a number of them I see as potentially multi-decade holdings.)
I am younger than most on the board and am heavily stocks. I do not recommend that those who are in retirement or nearing retirement allocate in the manner that I do, although I do think there are holdings of mine that are conservative, including Ecolab (ECL)
But yeah, I agree with what Press said: "Your choice is to put it in all at once per Ted's advice....which is sound if you have 10-15 years until retirement, or to invest in increments. Frankly, if you break it down, don't break it down too finely...1/3 or 1/2 at a time.
But you need to get it in play being that far out from retirement. If you see 2 big down days in a row, hold your nose and put the order in."

In situations like right now, I sell my "least conviction" funds, then if I think this may not be a dead cat bounce, I buy my "high conviction" funds. By that I don't mean I buy what I think might go down more or what I might go up more. I mean those funds I never bought as a long term hold, and those funds which would be the last funds I would sell.
So I sold some SCMFX, bought some FPACX. I sold some RWGFX, bought some AUXFX. No one went broke paying taxes and no one fretted about not making enough money in the market. Au contraire, I still feel like puking when I remember how stupid I was in 2000-2002 and will never get over it.
Hindsight is always 20-20. No one can predict the future. Make decisions in the present and be at peace with yourself they are the right ones. Don't let anyone tell you 5 years later you made a mistake. If they do, slap them.
Lesson for investing. Lesson for life.

Thanks Michael,
I'm about 75% equities in a taxable account, and 40% in an IRA rollover, but with additional monies to be put into play on the equity side in both as I described. I tend to shoot for 65-75% equities, but am flexible depending on the environment.
It's a bit more complicated than that, as those percentages include money in bucket 1-type funds for near term spending in both accounts. You may learn more about that as you near retirement. I'm a big fan of that type of mental accounting, and used the last 6 year run-up to fund that cushion. It makes entering retirement a bit less stressful.
What I recently added money to is in Scott's thread..."what are you buying", etc.
As an FYI...If I had things to do over again, I would have started earlier with my income sleeve consisting of dividend paying stocks. Even holding things like JNJ, PAYX, AEP as examples for the last 5 years, I have been astounded with the power of compounding dividends....and when stocks are down, is the perfect time to buy the dividend payers. That's a hint, BTW.
press.

Michael...as they say "time in the market beats timing the market". Unfortunately, moving money out of stocks requires you to be right twice...when to move it out, and then when to move it back in. I must say, if you wanted to scale back, you hit that first item right on the money.
I was faced with a similar question, when I recently retired and the 401K funds were shifted from my employer to Schwab where I control the rollover account. I purposely chose not to invest the equity portion...which turned out ok to this point, as I moved 35% into equities yesterday when the market was down 10%.
Your choice is to put it in all at once per Ted's advice....which is sound if you have 10-15 years until retirement, or to invest in increments. Frankly, if you break it down, don't break it down too finely...1/3 or 1/2 at a time.
But you need to get it in play being that far out from retirement. If you see 2 big down days in a row, hold your nose and put the order in.
Just curious...are the funds taxable when you ultimately withdraw them?

@MikeW: "I reduced my stock fund holdings % in my 401K account down to about 50%." That was a big mistake, get back to 75% as soon as possible. With 10-15 years till retirement, time is on your side.

Hello all,
I greatly appreciate the dialogue from members on MFO as I learn from each of you on a daily basis. I was hoping to get your advice. With the market turmoil, I reduced my stock fund holdings % in my 401K account down to about 50%. I did this two weeks ago. While I was able to avoid some of the carnage, I am now faced with needing to develop a strategy for increasing my stock holdings back up to their target allocation. I am 10-15 years away from retirement and my target allocation is 75% stocks and 25% bonds(38% S&P index, 16% small cap index, 21% international fund index, 20% short-term U.S. Treasury security index, 5% Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index).
I wanted to ask your advice on a strategy for gradually increasing my stock holdings back to their target allocation. I am thinking about increasing this gradually -- perhaps from 50% to 60% and then 60%-70% and finally 70-75%. I could make these moves on a weekly or monthly basis. Would value your advice on whether this makes sense or if you would suggest a different approach. Also, please let me know if you have any thoughts on my asset allocation. I am a member of the governments thrift savings plan so I can only choose their index funds.
thank you!
Michael

I have stuck with MAPOX. Market price has taken it down to 12.93% of my total. I concentrate on the 3-year return number, rather than day-to-day, because I've actually been in the fund for 3 years, now. But now, here it is, Thursday, 27th August, and EVERYTHING is green and doing well, even XOM, which is the 5th-largest holding in MAPOX. I do not think that the fund's bias toward Upper Midwest companies is good or bad, either way. Only 5% turnover, with a Large/Value slant.
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/MAPOX/quote.html

There are decent cash like choices to cover short term uses without dipping into bond and equity buckets. Cash Money market short term CD are reasonable choices as others on this board have noted on another discussion.
Many 401k plans have a stable value fund (ER 0.2%) with a daily NAV of $1.00 and a yield slightly higher than money market. Government employees have a government investment securities that functional similar to money market. Don't know if 403b plans have similar choices.

CHS Preferred Shares (CHSCP, there are others but lets use CHSCP as an example) over the last 6 months.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=CHSCP+Interactive#{"range":"6mo","allowChartStacking":true}
Take it out to 10 years.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=CHSCP+Interactive#{"range":"10y","allowChartStacking":true}
Plus a 6.5% yield currently.

Thanks MJG. There is a saying sitting next to my computer that reads "In Prosperity Be Prudent. In Adversity Be Patient." That's a similar message. It would be interesting to see the chart and graph extended to take in 100 years so the 1929 and 1937 declines could be included. That would provide a more complete picture of the kind of patience that doing nothing occasionally requires! And, its not clear to me central bankers will be able to keep that kind more extended decline from a prior peak from happening again.

Hi @rforno
Yes.
I still have to guage these type of funds against a longer time frame than a week or two.
Does one keep a portion of a portfolio in these as protection against downturns? If the equity market is down for more than one year, would there be a great benefit of "total return" using a alt. fund?
The "best" alt. fund return for 3 years = 9.9% and for 5 years = 8.3%. The best of these numbers is just that; and what about if one chooses the "bad/wrong" alt. fund and those folks don't really know what they're doing and may present one with a negative return.
The alt. funds on this M* list still can not match longer term returns in the 3 and 5 year columns for many equity and many bond funds; and I feel a review in 5 years from today will not be different.
Hell, if I was this smart; I would avoid the alt. funds and would know of soon to arrive downward moves in equity and have sold away those positions to move monies elsewhere.
I'll remain my own smart arse and rely on my own brain cells for today. I'll watch to find whether the alt. funds can capture 3, 5 year or longer positive returns above and beyond a simple mix of 50% each of VTI and BND (or your choice of similar).
I wish these "alt." funds well; be I am not optimistic about the long term performance.
Even the bear market funds look good right now, eh? Check their 3 and 5 years returns.
M* category returns through Aug. 25
Regards,
Catch

Bonds should return principal if held till maturity. Is there any risk that will not be the case for short term HY funds held for 3-5 years?
I am thinking about rising interest rate environment with falling bond prices. Can, for example RSIVX, be considered as good and safe investment, if held for 5 years, for investors who care about total return?

I never could figure out why so many here are enamored with RSIVX, mediocre since inception at best and underperforming this year. As to your question - with anything in the junk bond market you have to think *default* It's not a given there would never be a default among the portfolio of this or that fund that holds junk corporates.

Bonds should return principal if held till maturity. Is there any risk that will not be the case for short term HY funds held for 3-5 years?
I am thinking about rising interest rate environment with falling bond prices. Can, for example RSIVX, be considered as good and safe investment, if held for 5 years, for investors who care about total return?