Still a lot of uninformed folks who are paying loads for the benefit of having an advisor run the investments for them, eh?
I know of three married couples who are using full service advisors. I have asked and they don't know much about their investments, but that they are paying a 1.5% fee, plus buying the the front loaded funds.
I have talked with these folks over the years and none of them had any interest in learning even the most basic functions of investing in funds. In both cases, available time was not a factor.
Another, oh well moment. At the least, they are providing an income for another, who in turn spends the income back into the economy.

Junkster said "... All the more reasons why some of us old timers need to start spending and enjoying what we have accumulated over the years. Life is short!".
AMEN.
-
Assuming the age of a great many here to be 65 or over, I'm a little puzzled there isn't greater discussion about withdrawing money and putting proceeds to good use. How often are we as investors faced with a crucial investment decision? Rarely I'd say. By contrast, we make decisions about spending nearly every day of the week. Yet, nary a mention.
I have some possible explanations. First, the average age of participants may be much lower than envisioned (I'd love to see whatever demographic data David has). If the average age is closer to 35 or 45, than it makes sense so much of the discussion revolves around buying/selling mutual funds, stocks, bonds or other investments. Another possibility is that many older folks who come here may fear they haven't saved enough to meet anticipated retirement needs - and are struggling to play catch-up at a late stage. The third (most likely) explanation is that it just isn't considered appropriate to mention spending on a forum devoted to investing.
I'd never argue that one should stop investing - not at any age. Even late in retirement folks should be seeking to outperform the measly returns cash and many bonds now offer. And since retirement may well last 30 years or longer, younger retirees still need to be acute to growing the nest-egg. Also, some older investors are focused primarily on growing their assets for the benefit of posterity.
Thanks Junkster and heezsafe for pointing this out in your recent posts. Just some rambling over coffee this morning.

The 15-year number does not mean much to me. Cycles occur, as when U.S. stocks under-performed international from 2001-2007, and the reverse happened in 2008-2014. Most of these funds have had multiple manager changes in 15 years. I would be much more interested in looking at true diversified international (not global, not EM) with current manager track records or records including their previous intl fund stints. When I do that, I get a very different picture and group of funds.

Hi @Ted
This from my reply at your GMO link:
"Yup. One has to know what the intention and/or meaning of a particular investment is attempting to do.
Hell, healthcare will take a bang downward at some point in time, eh? One must pay attention to be an investor; deciding what they choose to do about/with risk and reward."
>>>The article mentions "Worrying"; but only in the title line.
As to currency swings. We all should understand that most standard active mutual funds do not apply a part of their operation to currency hedging.
But, also part of our world of investing is that other choices exist that do allow for flexibilty with investment choices.
From the GMO article link:
While many investors cite volatility reduction as a rationale for currency hedging, a white paper from GMO's Catherine LeGraw argues:
1) Volatility may be cut over the short-term, but not over longer horizons
>>>Correct
2) Volatility benefits have been reduced over time as companies become more global
>>>Correct
3) Even if volatility is lowered for international holdings, it isn't reduced for the whole portfolio as the hedging simply makes holdings more correlated with U.S. stocks
>>>Partially correct, IMHO
4) Hedging introduces leverage and hence tail risk (see the move in the Swiss franc).
>>>Correct. Investing involves risk, period.
>>>You directed this post towards me, and I am guessing this was based upon my notes to your GMO article post.
Worrying here regarding investments? Not at this time. Which includes our holding of HEDJ.
We sold our largest bond holding, LSBDX , beginning last October and unwound another large holding of PIMIX . LSBDX is at +.17% total return since mid-Oct, 2014 and -.21% YTD. PIMIX is about +3% YTD, and performing better than I expected. But, the monies from these sells have performed well with the purchases made with the monies.
We're about 65% equity between U.S. and Europe, at this time.
Europe, as we here know; has been going through stops and starts for investing for the past 5 years. The most recent QE program by the ECB may be of benefit; but I am not so sure of the overall long term value, at this time. The long time strength of the Euro finally started to decline (and stick) and we hope to ride this movement until the value of this is much less important.
Lastly, regarding the Euro currency. If, in conjunction the current QE policy of the ECB reducing interest rates and supporting bonds; that a positive recovery and strength for this areas exports will require the Euro to continue to devalue.
The holding periods for any of our investments is always subject to change dependent upon pricing and related market actions to any given sector.
The only sector of question at this time is U.S. real estate. Yes, this area has had a decent run for some time now; but I don't really find a reason for the recent weakness; other than profit taking.
Okay, time for more coffee; as I have to remove old carpeting/padding. YUCK !
Thanks for the question, or curiosity.
Take care,
Catch

Dear friends,
We have a conference call with Andrew Foster this Thursday evening, April 16, from 7:00 - 8:00 Eastern. Andrew manages SFGIX/SIGIX, which qualifies as a five-star fund under Morningstar's system and a Great Owl under our most risk-conscious one. Only 10 of 180 EM stock funds hold that distinction; of those, Seafarer has the distinction of being no-load, open to retail investors, and low cost (I think it has the lowest e.r. of the retail EM Owls).
The fund is up 13% YTD, 10% annually over the past three years, top 3% of its peer group. Andrew is one of the best communicators and best stewards around.
You'd be more than welcome to join us for hear from, and chat with, Andrew on Thursday. Failing that, I'd be delighted to share any questions you might have with Andrew and then I'll report back his responses in a "highlights" note here on the board.
As always, it's free and it's just a phone call so you can join in from pretty much anywhere.
Back to commenting on drafts of my students' papers,
David

FYI: Foreign stock mutual funds have outperformed U.S. stock funds the past 15 years. Stock funds invested abroad had built a huge lead by the end of 2007, as foreign markets, particularly emerging markets, surged while the U.S. economy struggled to recover from the bursting of the dot-com bubble.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTkyMTgzMzc=
Enlarged Graphic:
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=webLV041415.png&docId=747683&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1063&caption=&id=747601

Dear friends,
For what interest it holds, the Gargoyle Hedged Value fund has quietly moved from RiverPark to TCW. The prospectus for the TCW fund refers to RiverPark as "the predecessor fund." Same team, strategy and expenses, $75 million AUM, substantially higher minimum initial investment.
While it's been popular to grouch about the RiverPark Alternatives funds (which has always muddled me since two of the three are distinctly above average), you might note that Hedged Value transitioned three years ago from being a hedge fund. The composite hedge-mutual record earns it a five-star rating at Morningstar. The fund will earn a three-year rating at the end of this month; it's made about 14% annually since the conversion, finished in the top third each year and, on an absolute returns basis, is in the top 6% of long/short funds over the past three years.
I've got a call out to the managers to see what's transpired. I'll share as soon as I can.
As ever,
David

would it be possible to make "return group" a searchable criteria, along with "age group" and "risk group"? lots of times i want to exclude any fund that is less than a 4 or a 5 in terms of returns for, say, one year and three, etc. would be very helpful, i think.
also, and i think i've mentioned this a few times before, but is there a way to age limit the drawdown numbers so that i can more easily compare apples to apples?
iow, let's say i'm looking at the list of funds in age groups 5 and 10. well, i get max DD numbers for time periods less than 5 years (no bear market), combined with those up to ten years (one doozy of a bear market), which makes comparing the funds by DD irrelevant.
i think it'd be better to be able to list, say, age groups 5 and 10 but have the option to limit the DD to the past 5 years for those funds in the 10-year age group. that'd make the comparisons apple to apple. i think.
am i making myself at all clear?

A couple of peanut gallery comments (older definition of PG): One might be equally suspicious of any prognostication lacking the adverb ("may"), considering the accuracy of such headlines. He probably could have skated with "why you might not..."
Secondly, The ordinary folks around whom I grew up aren't represented on MFO. On contemplation, I must admit that that is what they did ("make do"), from lack of other options. OTOH, my parents were quite surprised when they inherited stock from my mousy maiden aunt who served for years as a telephone operator for Ma Bell, until she was automated into a nursing home aide. Of course, they have no idea what to do with the stock.

Hi Guys,
I’m a huge Jason Zweig fan. I remember him from a few years ago at the Las Vegas MoneyShow. He was one of the few (maybe the only) presenter who scored his previous years recommendations against their subsequent performance, and rated his record below average. That candid honesty immediately won him a fan. His numerous WSJ columns reinforced my respect.
In this current column, Zweig uses DALBAR analysis across a wide time period to conclude that the average individual investor is not especially successful in his/her investing strategies. In fact, given their historically consistent shortfalls, a less generous assessment just might characterize them as being dumb.
But the DALBAR work is not the end voice on this matter. It has been criticized for shortcomings in its analyses method. According to the math wizards, the purported shortcomings accumulate to overstate the investor’s underperformance. The magnitude might be in error, but the trendline remains in negative territory.
As you know, I like to access original data sources. In keeping with that tradition, allow me to suggest a reliable academic source on this matter. I offer a recent survey paper from Brad Barber and Terrance Odean of “Trading is Hazardous to Your Wealth” fame. You may recall that after examining tens of thousands of West Coast trading records, this team concluded that women trade less frequently than men do, and, consequently, outperform them.
Here is a Link to their fine, global summary paper:
http://www.umass.edu/preferen/You Must Read This/Barber-Odean 2011.pdf
This paper was integrated as Chapter 22 in the “Handbook of the Economics of Finance” tome that was released in 2013. At times the paper is very readable; at other times it gets analytical and data dense. It is a worthwhile skim-read with easily understood explanations and with plausible investor rationales suggested.
The Conclusions Section is exceptionally brief and succinct. It is quoted in its entirety as follows:
“ The investors who inhabit the real world and those who populate academic
models are distant cousins. In theory, investors hold well diversified portfolios and trade infrequently so as to minimize taxes and other investment costs. In practice, investors behave differently. They trade frequently and have perverse stock selection ability, incurring unnecessary investment costs and return losses. They tend to sell their winners and hold their losers, generating unnecessary tax liabilities. Many hold poorly diversified portfolios, resulting in unnecessarily high levels of diversifiable risk, and many are unduly influenced by media and past experience. Individual investors who ignore the prescriptive advice to buy and hold low-fee, well-diversified portfolios, generally do so to their detriment.”
I hope you visit the source material. Enjoy.
Best Regards.

@Old_Joe Yes, SFGIX appears to be a good choice for general EM exposure. But, when I sold LZOEX three years ago, I was looking for a FM fund with good exposure to Africa so I bought WAFMX (which I learned about at MFO). That got supplemented with MEASX when it became available for more FM Asia exposure. MAPIX, ARTJX, WAFMX, and MEASX give me about 6% EM exposure out of 50% in stocks (20% foreign, 30% US).

If you read Jason's column you can track back to Bob Seawright's essay on how advisors can make better decisions, then back again to Seawright'sessay of the same name in Research Magazine. Both make thoughtful arguments.
In the Research Magazine piece you'll find the name of the Dalbar study they're discussing. Googling the title allows you to find the Dalbar Quantititative Analysis of Investor Behavior (2014) study. There you'll get this answer to the question above:

QAIB uses data from the Investment Company Institute (ICI), Standard & Poor’s, Barclays Capital Index Products and proprietary sources to compare mutual fund investor returns to an appropriate set of benchmarks. Covering the period from QAIB’s inception (January 1, 1984) to December 31, 2013, the study utilizes mutual fund sales, redemptions and exchanges each month as the measure of investor behavior. These behaviors reflect the “average investor.” Based on this behavior, the analysis calculates the “average investor return” for various periods.

The Dalbar study, like Morningstar's, uses fund flows as a surrogate for investor returns. That is, if EM stock funds soar in 2015 but have a low level of assets while, say, large growth funds hold trillions but then crash, the former weighs lightly and the latter weighs heavily in assessing how the average stock investor did.
Three follow-up thoughts: (1) Messers. Zweig and Seawright agree that Dalbar is consistent with, though more pessimistic than, the rest of the published research:

... all the relevant studies show that individuals underperform by a significant amount (we tend to buy high and sell low), Dalbar’s data (the study I reference in the piece) shows a gap that’s much larger than the other research. I should have noted that here. But it doesn’t change the primary point — our decision-making isn’t very good and needs to get much better. It just isn’t likely that it’s quite as bad as Dalbar portrays it.

(2) I really dislike the quality of Dalbar's writing. They do a singularly poor job of explaining how they calculate things like the "Guess Right ratio" and their jumbled graphics detract from the argument.
(3) That said, they make important arguments: that the quality of investor decision making has improved steadily over 20 years, that the improvement seems to have plateaued, that investor education programs have limited effect but that there are four strategies that advisors might pursue which would improve investors' prospects.

The suggested approach consists of setting appropriate expectations, controlling investor exposure to risk, monitoring of risk tolerances and presenting forecasts in terms of probabilities.

For what interest it holds,
David

Hi Ted,
It is nice to read good things about a fund (PGBAX) that I own. Form my perspective it has served me well and is one of six funds that I hold within the hybrid income sleeve of my portfolio; and, it carries about a twelve percent weighting within its sleeve. The largest position held within this sleeve is FKINX with about a thirty percent weighting and one that I have own for many many years. Its inception year is 1948 the same as my birth year and a fund that I have owned since the mid fifties from a little seed money, gift, received form my great grandfather plus some of my teenage yard mowing proceeds invested in it.
Old_Skeet

FYI: This week’s WEALTHTRACK guest is legendary bond trader, Federal Reserve watcher and economist, Paul McCulley who spent many years in the top ranks of bond giant PIMCO. What financial forces does he see gathering now?
Regards,
Ted
http://wealthtrack.com/recent-programs/mcculley-prescient-thought-leader/

FYI: When he’s not on the road, Marc Dummer wakes up at 5:30 a.m., puts on a pair of shorts, and makes a 30-foot commute to his home office in Scottsdale, Ariz.
He and his wife moved to this recreational hot spot from Des Moines, Iowa, two years ago, as part of a flexible work program at Principal Global Investors. “They said you can live anywhere, as long as you’re near a major airport,” says Dummer, who is among the 6% of the Principal Financial Group’s U.S. employees who telecommute. The upshot: Business trips are less taxing, and time on the job is more productive. “At the end of the day, it’s about quality of your work,” he adds
Regards,
Ted
http://online.barrons.com/articles/principals-income-fund-many-ways-to-a-high-yielding-end-1428722943#printMode
M* Snapshot PGBAX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=PGBAX&region=usa&culture=en-US
Lipper Snapshot PGBAX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/PGBAX?countrycode=US
PGBAX Is Ranked #14 In The (CA) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/conservative-allocation/principal-global-div-inc-fund/pgbax

U.S. oil rig slowdown resumes rapid pace, down 40 this week
Apr 10 2015, 14:15 ET | By: Carl Surran, SeekingAlpha News Editor
The oil rig count has fallen for 18 consecutive weeks and is down 53% from the recent peak of 1,609 rigs hit on Oct 10, 2014.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2420336-u-s-oil-rig-slowdown-resumes-rapid-pace-down-40-this-week
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=79687&p=irol-rigcountsoverview
From Top 12 Media Myths On Oil Prices Posted on Wed, 08 April 2015 16:45
By Dan Doyle for Oilprice.com
Biography
Dan Doyle is president of Reliance Well Services, a hydraulic fracturing company based in Pennsylvania.
In short, oil prices will increase as weekly E I A production numbers begin posting declines as we saw last week. Demand will increase. Inventories will start getting eaten into by midyear. Europe will contribute as will Asia and the Middle East. A shrinking Chinese market is still growing at 7% a year, and that market is much bigger now than when it was posting 10% yearly growth five years ago. Rich Kinder was right in calling the bottom in the low 40s and John Hofmeiser (former President of Shell Oil) and T. Boone Pickens are probably pretty close to being right with their call of $80 as the top in the next year or so. A solid $65 to $70 by year end is the more reasonable number and is just enough to hold off development of some offshore projects, oil sands work and a good amount of the non-core shale plays. A stronger dollar will also do its work here as will a Saudi Arabia hell bent on market share. There will be less and less for shorts to hold onto and very few will want to be stuck on the same side of the trade as the big investment banks.
Misperception #11: American shale producers are the new swing producers. No, their banks are.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Top-12-Media-Myths-On-Oil-Prices.html

Howdy,
Well, in the early days of one's retirement plan via IRA, 401k, 403b or related; it may be difficult to initially appreciate a rate of return on your money, when the balance is $2,000. Presuming a first, one year return of 8% on the money, $160 does not seem like much for most folks.
The years roll past, and a working couple has managed to provide for a family and living within their incomes from their excellent budgeting skills; allowing them to continue to set aside monies into retirement funds.
They maintained their positive investment emotions over the years, even when the investment markets had a few rough periods. They did/do monitor their investments, but were not frequent with moving money here and there. They actually enjoy this monitoring, as it is also an ongoing educational experience.
Jumping forward to retirement period.
We find their investible retirement savings to be exactly $500,000 on March 9, 2009.
They decided, within their rollover IRA accounts, to have a moderate, U.S. centered investment allocation starting with a most simple plan. VTI and BND would have 50% of the monies allocated to each fund. They would monitor these choices and make adjustments as needed, based upon the results.
The combined annualized return between these 2 funds over the past 6 years is about 10%.
The numbers: March 2009 - March 2015
--- 1st year, + $50,000 gain
--- 2nd year, + $55,000 gain
--- 3rd year, + $60,500 gain
--- 4th year, + $66,550 gain
--- 5th year, + $73,205 gain
--- 6th year, + $80,525 gain
Total current value = $885,780
Total current gain over the 6 year period = $385,780
They calculated the following fun excercise regarding their invested monies versus their time; another very precious commodity. They were curious with their time spent to monitor and perhaps take any actions with their investment holdings; as to what this would mean in terms of an hourly rate of pay for their efforts.
Upon review, this couple determined they spend an average of 20 hours per week with investment business information; in written and television form. Keeping in mind that they don't really consider this a chore, as they both enjoy keeping up to date and informed.
Twenty hours a week of time becomes 1,040 hours a year. With this in place, the following numbers were determined as to an hourly rate of pay:
--- 1st year = $48/hour
--- 2nd year = $53/hour
--- 3rd year = $58/hour
--- 4th year = $64/hour
--- 5th year = $70/hour
--- 6th year = $77/hour
Overall average of the 6 years = $62/hour
Obviously, they found these numbers quite pleasing; and more than any hourly pay rate they had received during their working careers.
Well, another view; at least for this house, as to the value of saving and investing; and how it relates in the long run, to a part-time, post-retirement pay scale for working from the comfort of your own home. :)
Hoping your hourly pay rate for the time spent monitoring and educating yourself for now or the future, to help your investments grow properly, into enough Assets Under Management; that you are well rewarded for your efforts.
All numbers should be accurate. Please let me know if the math has a problem, as I can always blame the HP-12C calculator.
Take care,
Catch

I have about $100,000 outside of "emergency cash" that I want to do something with. I don't feel comfortable dropping that money into equities with the current valuations and market situation. I already own plenty of muni funds so I don't want to put all my eggs in that basket, either. I guess I could ladder some CDs over the next two years, or put it in something like LALDX for a few years.

FYI: A new study finds that the average investor in all U.S. stock funds earned 3.7% annually over the past 30 years—a period in which the S&P 500 stock index returned 11.1% annually. That means stock-fund investors underperformed the market by approximately 7.4 percentage points annually for three decades, according to Dalbar, a financial-research firm in Boston that has updated this oft-cited study each year since 1994.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/05/09/just-how-dumb-are-investors/tab/print/
Dalbar Study:
http://grandwealth.com/files/DALBAR QAIB 2014.pdf

@Junkster & @davfor- best of both worlds- I kept MAPIX despite the lack of dividend last qtr, and also have SFGIX. Both of those, as you mentioned, thanks to many years of good info from folks here at MFO & FundAlarm. About 5% of our portfolio for those two.