https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattcarey/2018/09/04/2018-guide-to-bond-cd-and-annuity-laddering/#5f36c7a62d00
Forbes
You can just as easily stagger the maturities at 3 month or 3 year intervals or have an investment horizon of 3 years or 10 years. Ladder with Bonds ...

@MFO Members: Unfortunately, the article link by JohnN, the stock choices were in slideshow format. Here are the nine.
Regards,
Ted
1. CVS
2. MSFT
3. SBUX
4. PG
5. HD
6. UNH
7. TXN
8. ITW
9. AFL

@MFO Members: Records indicate that Berkowitz first purchased Sears in 2005. How many shares, and the time frame I don't know, however ; the stock price for Sears ranged from $76 to $94 dollars in 2005.
Regards,
Ted

https://money.usnews.com/investing/dividends/slideshows/9-solid-stocks-growing-their-dividendsSolid Stocks Growing Their Dividends
Sept. 5, 2018
When investors look for stocks paying dividends, sometimes they fall into the trap of simply picking a big dividend yield. However, chasing yield can have its flaws.
You have to hold a stock for 12 months to get the full annualized dividend yield – and a lot can happen in that period, including potential reductions to payouts or severe declines in stock price. A better strategy for many investors over the long term is to hold a stable stock that continues to grow its dividend consistently.
These dividend growers may not offer the biggest yield, but they do offer the potential of steady increases in payouts and a lot of consistency as a result.
1. CVS Health Corp. (ticker: CVS). Health giant CVS saw some downward pressure in the wake of a massive $69 billion bid for health insurer Aetna (AET) in March. However, shares have bounced back recently with the stock up about 25 percent from those spring lows on increased optimism about the long-term prospects of this giant that is increasingly a one-stop shop for all things in health care.
For income investors, the dividend is nice but the long-term history of increases is even better. CVS pays a current rate of $2 annually per share, an extraordinary increase over the 28 cents it paid in 2008.
2. Microsoft Corp. (MSFT). Software giant Microsoft has been on a tear in the last few years, with its stock tripling since 2013 thanks to the shrewd leadership of CEO Satya Nadella. A new focus on cloud computing and a rejuvenation of the brand has helped propel this tech giant to new all-time highs like clockwork. The dividend has kept pace with that sharp upward climb, too.
Though a relatively new kid on the dividend block, tech giant Microsoft has wasted no time showing how generous it can be with payouts; dividends were 52 cents in 2008 and are currently pacing an annual rate of $1.68. – Jeff Reeves

FYI: Passive index fund investing is popular for a singular reason. In most cases, passive index fund investment returns surpass those of active fund managers.
John Bogle and his Vanguard brokerage firm launched the first S&P 500 index fund in 1977 with the idea that if costs were slashed, a simple fund that mirrored the S&P 500 had a chance to return close to 9 percent annually, the historical stock market average.
Gradually, the index fund caught on and today there are hundreds of varieties of index funds covering popular indices such as the Dow Jones industrial average and the S&P 500, to niche funds encompassing small-cap, growth, value stocks and more. Investors can also choose from bond, commodity and alternative asset index funds.
The index fund mania doesn't show signs of abating. A recent research report from Standard & Poor's found that index fund investing was more successful than ever. The 2017 report states that over the last 15 years, 92 percent of actively managed large-cap funds returns lagged those of a S&P 500 index fund. And, small- and mid-cap active funds were worse performers with 93 and 95 percent of indexes, respectively, winning the return competition over similar actively managed funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://money.usnews.com/investing/funds/articles/2018-09-05/are-actively-managed-mutual-funds-fading-away

FYI: Bruce Berkowitz, head of Fairholme Capital Management, has cut his personal exposure to Sears Holdings by selling a little more than half a million dollars in stock.
Berkowitz disclosed in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that he sold 444,800 shares of the struggling department store between Aug. 21 and Aug. 27 for a total of $517,100, or an average of $1.16 each.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/big-sears-shareholder-slashes-stake-1536147001?mod=hp_highlight_2
M* FAIRX Holdings:
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=FAIRX&region=usa&culture=en-US

FYI: (This is a follow-up article.)
The fiduciary rule is dead, but its spirit lives on.
The rule, which the Department of Labor first proposed in 2015, required brokers to act as fiduciaries — to put their clients’ interests ahead of their own — when handling retirement accounts. It sounded simple, but it meant that brokers would have to rethink the way they do business.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-04/merrill-lynch-can-t-restore-the-bad-old-days-of-conflicts

@Ted: Easy, there, Ted. Don't lose it again. You want a link? Here's one that you may find helpful.

Continuing to DCA into PRGTX. I started when this was new fund and it has doubled in price. Once it get to $25 a share, I’ll stop buying and let err ride like I did with PRMTX and PRHSX.

Did you take a close look at the criteria?

No institutional share classes. I exclude these to help you get a list you can use. (I allow funds called institutional if the minimum investment is $25,000 or less.)

Maybe you were just lax with your tickers, and you meant DSENX. We can work with that.
We still don't have to look very far. Start with the first criterion:

Cheapest quintile of broad level category groupings.

DSENX ain't cheap. "[A]ll large-cap U.S. equity funds are in one grouping." M* says that DSENX's 0.81% ER (prospectus)/0.79% (annual report) rates "average" among "Large cap no load" funds.
Moving on to the second criterion:

Manager investment of more than $1 million in the fund.

You invest in this fund, so you're probably aware of these figures. Grundlach has put not a dime into this fund. Garza, who doesn't even manage the fund (he manages DMLIX), has put in more money than that. At least Sherman has invested six figures, but not even half the million bucks required to qualify for M*'s list.
I could go on.

FYI: (Revised, at one time I owned Vanguard Wellington.)
It’s time once more for Russel's annual screen for fantastic funds. With just a few key screens, he pared down the universe of more than 8,000 mutual funds to just 28.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/881522/the-terrific-28.html

There's a M'star piece on the debt/capital ratio of S&P 500 corps up now.
Short FWIW version: over the past 3y, it's grown beyond the 2009 GFC peak (43% vs. 37.5%). Mid/small caps and foreign have smaller but still fairly significant ratios.
The disclaimer in the article: "... average debt/capital is limited in its utility to a degree. What matters as much as a company’s debt/capital is its interest coverage and cash flows. Some companies, such as utilities, tend to have fairly high debt/capital ratios, but they can generally afford to given their predictable cash flows."

@DavidRMoran How successful does this sound to you?:

Around half of American households have no retirement accounts at all. No 401(k)s, no IRAs, nothing. You might think that’s because they’re all expecting pension income in retirement. In fact, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), around 29% of households age 55 and older have neither retirement savings nor a pension. It doesn’t paint a pretty picture.

Not news, and not what I was saying about those who partook.
So good grief (favored locution with you), man, whose doing, or whose fault do you think this is? Not to sound like a wingnut anti-libtard, since you can take offense all you want but you fully know by now where I stand, is this the doing of gov, and / or / but what do you think gov role in all of this should be?
It is like the args made about lack of exercise and smoking and fat and health. I have a bil who works for Doctors Without Borders but used to be a cardio in Michigan with a preponderance of patients who were cheese-eating smokers, as his practice put it.
As he himself still says, talk about a collision of values / goals / efforts / freedom policies.
So ... what IS your point about the original provisions? How is success to be defined? You are the one who (wrongly, maybe) defined original intention. Read msf's links. I bet we are in violent agreement about future policy, or close.
But we are talking about the past, and I was commenting on all those who partook of this new legislation bigtime, including myself.

I think it was Bush II whose administration proposed privatizing a part of SS (25% IIRC) and making wage earners participate in 401K-like vehicles. I recall that idea going nowhere. It may be that many Americans who could benefit from investment savings have an unhealthy fear of the securities markets.
From my point of view, Americans are poor savers; public institutions and the private sector have long abandoned providing meaningful pension plans; we are going to live much longer than thought when ERISA was enacted; therefore something must be done to address these problems. Tinkering with RMDs isn't even a band-aid solution to the retirement savings problem and what the Administration is proposing would only exacerbate growing inequality.

@Ted: This time is different, right? If the relationship between "The S&P 500 index reached an all-time high last Wednesday, which helped stocks close the week and month on a positive note " and "Turkey’s woes could be just the start as record global debt bills come due" eludes you perhaps you need to read a little history of recessionary triggering events. You do still read books, I hope.
My card deck is just fine, as evidenced by the fact that no one needs to continually remind me that I'm not in charge of anything at MFO, but thanks anyway for your concern. I still hope for improvement at your end, despite all of the signs to the contrary.
Just out of mild curiosity, what did you do before you belatedly discovered little yellow circles with frowns inside? Those things are certainly powerful illiteracy devices.

@Ted: An excerpt from a current Washington Post Article:
"Turkey’s woes could be just the start as record global debt bills come due"
"Ten years after the worst financial panic since the 1930s, growing debt burdens in key developing economies are fueling fears of a new crisis. For now, few experts think that a broader crisis is imminent. But the danger of a financial contagion should be taken more seriously in light of a massive increase in global debt since the 2008 downturn, the economists said."

The original intention language is indeed in ERISA (Pub. L. 93-406), right at the top, Title I, Subtitle A, Sec 2, "Findings and Declarations of Policy". That section was subsequently codified as 29 USC §1001.
Here's how the ICI summarized that language in 2005:

A little over 30 years ago, Congress enacted and President Gerald R. Ford signed into law the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The purpose of the Act was to protect and enhance Americans’ retirement security by establishing comprehensive standards for employee benefit plans. The Act also created the Individual Retirement Account, or IRA.

The ICI goes on to note that the purpose of those IRAs was narrow - to fill the gap only for "individuals not covered by retirement plans at work."
"IRAs “have drifted very far from their original intent” of helping those who need them most, researchers for the Center for Retirement Research [at Boston College] conclude in a new study."
http://squaredawayblog.bc.edu/squared-away/iras-fall-short-of-original-goal/
That study complements the data Lewis cited by providing data for the IRA subset of all retirement accounts. Its summary:

The brief’s key findings are:

• IRAs were intended to give those without an employer plan access to a tax-deferred savings vehicle.
• Today, IRAs hold nearly half of all private retirement assets, but most of these funds are rollovers from 401(k)s, rather than contributions.
• The 14 percent of households who do contribute to IRAs include:
  • higher-income dual-earners who also save in a 401(k);
  • moderate-income singles or one-earner couples, often with a 401(k); and
  • higher-income entrepreneurs with no current 401(k).
• One way to turn IRAs back into an active savings vehicle – one used more for contributions – is to auto-enroll all workers without an employer plan in an IRA.

The summary, including links to data (with charts) and to the full study, can be found here:
http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/who-contributes-to-individual-retirement-accounts/

@DavidRMoran How successful does this sound to you?:

Around half of American households have no retirement accounts at all. No 401(k)s, no IRAs, nothing. You might think that’s because they’re all expecting pension income in retirement. In fact, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), around 29% of households age 55 and older have neither retirement savings nor a pension. It doesn’t paint a pretty picture.

https://www.investopedia.com/news/stocks-near-record-highs-risks-continue-mount/?utm_source=chart-advisor&utm_campaign=bouncex&utm_term=14341693&utm_content=09/02/2018&utm_medium=email
By Justin Kuepper | August 31, 2018 — 6:44 PM EDT
Share
The S&P 500 index reached an all-time high last Wednesday, which helped stocks close the week and month on a positive note