Getting back to @MikeM’s and @msf’s original comments. Like most here I suspect,they maintain a “survival bucket” holding X years worth of anticipated needs in the event of a severe selloff in the risk assets to which one is exposed (presumably equities). I’ve heard estimates ranging from 3-5 years worth of anticipated needs held in cash or cash equivalents by various board members over the years. The idea is not to have to sell depreciated assets during a downturn. The expectation is that downturns will last a relatively short time (perhaps 5 years). Folks cite market history to support the perception downturns tend to be short lived and followed by sharp upticks.
I’d never quarrel with that approach. Certainly sounds reasonable. Personally I’ve never used it. A very conservative investor by nature, I believe I’m better off maintaining 100% invested at all times and pulling annual distributions from that overall pot. (Note: That does not mean 100% in equities or risk assets.) Never have I needed more than 10% from investments in a single year. Most often it’s in the vicinity of 5-7%.
I could be wrong. But my sense is I’m somewhat protected against severe equity selloffs by the diversification I maintain. It’s probably the #1 reason I pay intense attention to different market sectors almost daily and track several funds that represent various sectors. And, if equities drop sharply, I’ll essentially “rebalance on the run” by shifting withdrawals to the fixed income holdings. To some extent this has been an ongoing process over the years. I always pull distributions from the portions that have fared the best.
Just some rambling thoughts. One size does not fit all. Admittedly, my approach is better suited for very conservative investors.

You are not missing anything.
#1 question - With low inflation and fixed income vehicles paying ~2%, many investors are chasing what is going up, US equities.
#2 question - Perhaps this is their cash position. However, money market funds are yielding 1.5%. I prefer Vanguard short term treasury index, VSBSX that yields 1.59% and the YTD as of 12/19/19 at 3.38%. If I venture out with intermediate term corporate bonds and some stock exposure with Vanguard Wellesley Income, VWINX (35/65 stock/bond), it yields 2.54% with YTD of 15.97%.

@Gary, Please see the IRS link provided above. Roth IRA contribution limit for 2019 is $6,000. For those who are over 50, an additional $1,000 is allowed as catch-up.
For 2020, Roth IRA contribution limit remained unchange.
If in doubt, the best is check with the original source - IRS.

They may have grandfathered $100K Preferred Services customers.
https://discuss.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/t/373185.aspx

You need $250K in assets at T. Rowe to get free Morningstar Premium.

#1 Dumb Question - Than why is the stock market continuing to go higher and higher? What’s driving equity prices?
#2 Dumb Question - What’s the big appeal of money market funds, which on average have netted investors less than a 1.5% return YTD? (Compare that with a conservative actively managed 40/60 fund (TRRIX) which has returned more than 14%.)
Umm ... what am I missing here?

This is not unusual for small company plans. Small companies tend to shift the cost of running the plan onto the participants in the form of higher expense ratios (level loads).
Companies are going to spend a certain amount of money on each employee. That includes overhead (desk space, etc.), salary, and benefits. They can choose to pay higher salaries and have you pay more for your benefits (i.e. your 401(k) plan administration). Or they can choose to pay lower salaries and then they cover the cost of your plan. Similarly, they can provide matching contributions or pay more in salary. And so on.
I'm a bit surprised to see a company simultaneously push the cost of administering the plan onto employees and offer matching contributions. If they have money (budget) for matching, companies usually cover the cost of the plans themselves.
What the company is doing is not all bad. By having the participants pay for the cost of the plan, the company is placing the burden exclusively on those employee who are benefiting from the plan.
The bigger issue is why in 2019 any plan, even one for a small company, costs so much that the employer isn't willing or able to spring for the costs. Raymond James as intermediary might have something to do with it. Hard to tell with so little info.
Here's what American Funds says about its R share classes.
https://www.capitalgroup.com/us/investments/share-class-information/share-class-pricing.html#classr
R-2 shares are designed and priced for when "Plan sponsor [employer] wants all or part of recordkeeping costs [i.e. fee paid to CUNA Mutual] to be covered by plan assets [i.e. ERs of funds as opposed to employer paying]". Until you get to R-4 shares, the participants are paying a load (a 12b-1 fee in excess of 0.25%) to cover some of the plan costs.
P.S. The MMF yielded exactly 0.00% in FY 2015, 2016, and 2017. It achieved that non-negative performance only because it waived some fees for those years. With rates on the way back down, don't expect much better going forward.
MMF Prospectus.

Mike- are you saying then Roth IRA contribution is now 7500?Im over 60/ If so wunderbar

This is what I see. Fidelity may have given you incorrect information. It does mention income limits. Could that be it?
The Roth IRA contribution limit is $6,000 for 2019, up from $5,500 in 2018. Retirement savers 50 and older can contribute an extra $1,000. Income limits apply. Retirement savers have yet another reason to celebrate the Roth IRA: The maximum amount that can be contributed to a Roth in 2019 has been increased by $500. Jun 11, 2019

I am over 50 - Motley Fool said I could contribute $ 6000 plus $ 1000 for a total of $ 7000. because I am over 50 years old.
Fido said NO. Anybody else have any comments or knowledge of the subject.
Thank You

“ I am presently at 5 institutions which I will reduce to 4 by Spring 2020 and 3 by summer 2020 “
Great stuff @bee. I’m a dozen years beyond you in age and facing the same challenges. I went from 5 institutions to 4 a year ago - vacating Oakmark. Tough getting it down further anytime soon. I view both Permanent Portfolio Funds and Invesco as “one-trick ponies” at this point. The first for PRPFX and the second for its gold fund. The bulk, however, is at D&C and TRP - both of which I regard highly.
bee - You incentivized me to count mine: I have 14 funds (which includes 2 ultra-shorts). I find that number quite manageable. (If I counted correctly, you listed 16, including VHT.)
My allocation :
Balanced: 25% (3 funds)
Alternative: 25% (3 funds)
Diversified Income: 25% (2 funds)
Cash (Ultra-short / Short-term): 15% (3 funds)
Real Assets: 10% (3 funds)
PS - As noted recently, thinking about this allocation is a good way to fall asleep. :)

As part of my end of the year portfolio review I try to simplify my holdings without compromising performance. I am 60 years old and have a pension, but no Social Security (SS's WEP provision eliminated SS for me). I see the next 20 years as a time to spend a little bit of what I have saved knowing full well that, if I am lucky enough to live into my eighties, spending priorities will begin to shift away from "foot loose and fancy free" to "foot wear that's loose and free".
Simplification comes in two forms. One, I am attempting to simplify what I hold (the number of funds) and two, where I hold these funds (the number of institutions where I hold the funds). I manage all of my investments independent of advisors. I do attempt to seek out mutual funds that are managed. So, in a sense, I do pay for investment management advice as a function of the Expense Ratio (ER) of the funds i own that have fund managers or management teams.
Over the next 20 years my withdrawal from these investments need to fund:
- Yearly Income gaps - the yearly shortfall when I subtract my projected yearly expenses from my retirement income.
- One time Expenses - For gift costs (weddings, tuition, holidays), travel costs, medical procedures costs (not covered by insurances), large one time item costs (a car, boat, real estate)
- Roth Conversions up to the 12% tax bracket limit (25% of my retirement accounts are in deferred taxable IRA, 75% in Roth/HSA).
- Help fund retirement needs beyond 80 such as income gaps as a result of inflation, out of pocket health care costs, funeral expenses, providing for surviving spouse, and gifting to beneficiaries (Spouse, Kids, Charities)...oh yeah, and loose fitting shoes.
Here are my present holding by percentages of total:
71% Moderate to Aggressive positions (for long term growth and periodic withdrawals)
PRWCX - 22% (half Roth, half SD IRA)
PRGSX - 10.5% (Roth)
PRMTX - 7.5% (Roth)
PRHSX - 4% (SD IRA)
VMVFX - 6% (Roth)
VHCOX / POAGX-11% (Roth)
VHT - 2% (Roth)
FSMEX - 4% (Roth)
FSRPX - 4% (Roth)
6% Balance position (to cover Long term HC costs)
BRUFX - (HSA)
23% Conservative positions (to cover sequence of return withdrawals, to provide cash for buying opportunities, lower portfolio volatility)
FRIFX, VWINX, PTIAX, VFISX, PRWBX, SPRXX - (mostly Roth)
I am presently at 5 institutions which I will reduce to 4 by Spring 2020 and 3 by summer 2020
Recently, I back tested a portfolio consisting of PRWCX (34%), PRMTX (33%) and PRHSX (33%) which I consider moderately aggressive.
Its past 20 year performance had a MAXXDD recovery period of 3 years. I consider this a reasonable time frame to cover a sequence of return risk withdrawal.
Having at least 3 years of retirement income money earmarked for these future time frames (market pull backs and recoveries) seems reasonable to me. A combination of FRIFX / VWINX / PTIAX / ST Bonds are my choices for this part of my portfolio.
Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated.

Recently accepted a job with a new employer who offers a matching 401k plan. Employer has around 15 to 20 eligible employees. It's been 22 years since I've had access to a 401k plan. Below are the offerings. I've included the corresponding class A shares for each fund which are not available to plan participants. The disparity in expense ratios is staggering in most cases. I'm not going to turn down free money, but I'll only contribute enough to maximize the company match. The plan's adviser from Raymond James stated that changes are being discussed. Sounds like Target Date Funds are among the discussion and hopefully some Index funds, but I fear what the ER for those funds would end up looking like given this lineup. The plan is through Cuna Mutual, whoever they are. I gathered the ER from M*.
Bonds
AMF High-Inc R2 RITBX 1.45 AHITX .73
AMF Bond Fund of Amer R2 RBFBX 1.36 ABNDX .60
AMF Interm Bd Fd of Amer R2 RBOBX 1.35 AIBAX .64
Large Cap Stocks
AMF Washington Mutual R2 RWMBX 1.37 AWSHX .59
Calamos Growth C CVGCX 2.04 CVGRX 1.29
Victory Diversified Stock R GRINX 1.34 SRVEX 1.05
International Stocks
AMF Capital World Gr & Inc R2 RWIBX 1.55 CWGIX .76
AMF Europacific Growth R2 RERBX 1.59 AEPGX .83
AMF Smallcap World R2 RSLBX 1.78 SMCWX 1.08
Asset Allocation
AMF Balanced R2 RBABX 1.48 ABALX .57
AMF Capital Income Bldr R2 RIRBX 1.39 CAIBX .58
Calamos Growth & Income C CVTCX 1.85 CVTRX 1.10
Money Market
AMF US Government MMkt R2 RABXX 1.41 AFAXX .38

From the linked web site:
"MoneyCheck is a fast-growing online publication launched in 2018 with the aim of covering personal finance and investment news.

Our goal is to simplify and explain in clear language, what can be a confusing jumble of terms and concepts. We hope to provide clear, unbiased facts so people can make up their own mind about important financial decisions."
Being curious and using same to gather knowledge about investments; I'll periodically "bite" at a title that pronounces "Complete Guide". One never knows about a new and undiscovered individual who may actually be qualified in a subject area; and with the rare gift of presenting subject information in a clear and defined manner. When such articles are discovered here and elsewhere, at a minimum, I pass these along to friends and family to help provide for continuing financial educational purposes.
BUT, I'm not quite sure what is going on with this "financial" write. Complete isn't a qualifying word with this. Periodically, one discovers some common terms for a U.S. marketplace, such as; CD's, 401k/403b, etf tickers, etc. As Mr. Oliver is an online media company owner, it is not clear whether he or a contributor wrote this article; nor to what are his or others qualifications to discuss some of the information provided. Or whether any number of the publications are for the sake of only generating revenue from site hits and clicks to other pages. While there is some valid info in the article, I don't find "complete" and if there is a click link to another page; I won't be traveling there.
A few of the head scratchers for me, from the article:
--- You might already own a 401(k) or IRA through your employer. However, you’ll only gain access to this cash when you turn 59.5-years old. If you have to draw down on your account before this date, you’ll end up paying penalties and fees on any money you withdraw.
>>> Well, yes and no. Ready cash for immediate needs = yes; as loans may be available from a 401k.
--- Visit your bank and open a Certificate of Deposit (CD) instead. Banks are always looking for more capital. By taking a CD with a bank, you agree to pay them a fixed amount every month in return for interest on your money.
>>> I must be out of the loop of knowledge for CD's as I don't know what, "agree to pay them a fixed amount every month", means.
--- Bonds are another attractive savings vehicle for long-term growth. Bonds couple interest earnings to the Federal Funds Rate, and you earn coupon payments on your principal investment. However, while relationships are a stable and liquid investment, they don’t offer much in the way of returns. At the moment, you can expect a yield of 1.75%, and if interest rates drop, then your profits do as well.
>>> Huh ???....." and if interest rates drop, then your profits do as well." Well, I think I know what he is trying to portray; but this would confuse the hell for most folks as to the relationship between bond yield movements and pricing to cause a profit or not.
Apparently, the writer hasn't kept up with U.S. bond funds returns for 2019, YTD.
--- Oliver Dale is Editor-in-Chief of MoneyCheck and founder of Kooc Media Ltd, A UK-Based Online Publishing company. A Technology Entrepreneur with over 15 years of professional experience in Investing and UK Business.His writing has been quoted by Nasdaq, Dow Jones, Investopedia, The New Yorker, Forbes, Techcrunch & More.He built Money Check to bring the highest level of education about personal finance to the general public with clear and unbiased reporting.[email protected]

--- Oliver Dale is Editor-in-Chief of GardenBeast and founder of Kooc Media Ltd, A UK-Based Online Publishing company. He has had a love of gardening for many years now and spends the spring to autumn months working on his own garden where he carries out one large project each year ( this year was decking & patio area ).
Oliver oversees the day to day running of the website & publication of our articles.
IMHO, the article offers a few decent things to think about for some folks (considerations for owning a home), is very confusing in areas noted above and doesn't qualify as Investing 101, and COMPLETE is, well..............NOT even close, eh? Does Mr. Dale or others provide a peer review of the information before publishing?
Not an article I will pass forward to others; and I don't understand why this link/article found its way to this site.
Lastly, I don't plan to visit their GardenBeast site.
My 2 cents worth and Take care,
Catch

Royce has gone from 34.32 billion in total assets in 2010 to 9.01 billion now per Morningstar, but even worse is Third Ave funds which had 10.53 billion in total assets in 2010 to 1.83 billion now. Massive drops indeed.

Royce & Associates has just announced a bold rebranding strategy. It "better describes the breadth of the firm's business and the importance it places on the spirit of partnership with which the company has always conducted itself ... it better represent[s] to all of our constituents who we are now as a firm ... it better represent[s] the range of our strategies." With a boldness surely inspired by their be-bowtied, soon-to-be-octagenarian founder, Royce and Associates has become ...
Royce Investment Partners!
Ta da!
Uhhh ... R.I.P.? Was that an inspired choice for a firm who's seen assets decline 17% in the past 12 months and 75% in the decade?
Here's the 12 year correlation between their flagship Pennsylvania Mutual (PENNX) fund and the 11 next-oldest funds in their lineup:
0.99%
0.95
0.98
0.96
0.99
0.98
0.96
0.96
0.94
0.95
0.95
And that's after liquidating much of the sea of clones they launched after Legg Mason bought them.
I got a heads up about the change from a reader, Brett Schneider, who concludes, "The joke writes itself. RIP."
David

The legacy pages of M* still let you do that.
Here's the link for the performance page of VFIAX. In Enter Tickers box of the Compare section, you can enter the tickers of the funds or ETFs that you want to compare. While the graph only goes back ten years, the table of returns ("Trailing Total Returns") has exactly the columns you asked for: annualized returns over 1,3,5,10, and 15 years.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=VFIAX&region=usa&culture=en-US

Is there a site that you can compare 5 funds or etfs 1,3,5, 10, and going out to 15 years annualized returns?

LEXCX would be good if it had a lower ER. Sorry, for an essentially unmanaged fund, the ER should be like .15 or less.

Here is a performance chart comparison (see link below) of FDYZX which include other funds that were around in 1968...such as LEXCX, VWINX, VWELX.
LEXCX would have been a better all stock fund choice. I find that a mutual fund needs a consistent higher upside capture (I'll call this alpha) in order to overcome its periodic downside. LEXCX achieved this "two steps forward...one step back" over the long term much more so that FDYZX has.
VWINX and VWELX even achieve a better performance ride most of time and with a lot less volatility compared to FDYZX.
Chart Comparison