FYI: Saturday's ABC World News aired an investment snippet on how Americans should prepare for retirement. The feature lasted just under a minute and a half.
Consequently, there was no time to explain the numbers. Such are mass communications, and you will find no protest from me. This column skips plenty of details itself. However, I do have enough room to explore the segment's most dramatic claim: That somebody who begins investing at age 23 can retire with $1 million by investing $14 daily into a "low-cost S&P 500 fund."
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/880879/can-you-accumulate-1-million-saving-14-per-day.html
ABC News Article:
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=86992&page=1

FYI: -ProShares, a premier provider of ETFs, today announced that its S&P 500 Ex-Technology ETF (SPXT) will be changing its index effective on or about September 21, 2018.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180827005589/en/ProShares-SP-500-Ex-Technology-ETF-Change-Index

When you get to three dots, watch out for ghosts ...
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/some-three-dot-journalism-in-honor-of-herb-caen/252489/

Thanks again @davidmoran
Re tutorial (noun) - Cambridge Dictionary
1. a period of study with a tutor involving one student or a small group
2. a period of study with a tutor and a small group of students
3. IT a document or website on a computer that shows you how to use a product in a series of easy stages:
Albeit, you used the adverb form of the word (which is rarely used). So to tie things together:
tutorially: in the manner of a tutorial (Collins Dictionary)
Here’s how M* describes Ms. Benz’s role and purpose: “Morningstar director of personal finance Christine Benz has developed a series of hypothetical portfolios for savers and retirees. These portfolios are offered as general examples for investors' reference. These portfolios are not personalized recommendations, nor are they investable products offered by Morningstar.”
Hope I’m not nit-picking. Just trying to understand why I should be particularly interested in her advice over, say, someone like Ol’Skeet here who does a great job explaining his long standing bucket approach or the folks at T. Rowe Price who present models by example. (ie - I can take apart a given target date retirement fund designed by them and visualize how much they allocate to different funds or sectors.) I’m not saying Christine Benz’s is bad advice. Just asking why she deserves more credence than someone else who’s equally (possibly more) experienced?
Nothing in Benz’s listed educational background (below) suggests any type of financial training or certification. All I see there is political science and East European history. Also, I’ve never thought of M* as an advisory firm. Always thought their forte was in statistical analysis of fund data. (But, I’ll admit to rarely looking at them.)
Christine Benz’s Experience (Linkedin) https://www.linkedin.com/in/christine-benz-b83b523/
Director of Personal Finance
Morningstar, Inc.
2008 – Present (10 years)
Director of Mutual Fund Analysis
Morningstar, Inc.
February 2006 – March 2008 (2 years 2 months)
Education
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
BA, Political Science, Russian and East European Studies
Lyons Township High School
From Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Christine-Benz/e/B002PICOLS
“Christine (Benz) holds a bachelor's degree in political science and Russian/East European studies from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She lives in the Chicago suburbs with her husband, Greg. She is an avid cook, a political junkie, and a long-suffering Chicago Cubs fan.”

https://www.morningstar.com/content/morningstarcom/en_us/model-portfolios.html
https://www.linkedin.com/in/christine-benz-b83b523/
dir of personal finance at M*, for some years

My earlier goof. Glanced at the thread on the way out the door and assumed “Christine” was a newbie here seeking advice. Didn’t realize she’s actually a journalist spewing out model portfolios. I’d be very careful criticizing the investment choices of any one individual. Only they really understand their situation and temperament.
But if folks find it either instructive or amusing to argue about model portfolios that’s fine for me. Go for it. Few of us will be here in 40 years to judge who had it right. I used to look at them for ideas 20-30 years back seeking to chart my own course. Little value or interest now to someone like me (and many others here) who’ve been at this for the past 50 years of their life. Indeed, most of the TRP funds being touted here didn’t even exist 50 years ago.
Regards

@MFO Members: In my opinion, MCG will continue to outperform MCV as it has for the last five year.
Regards,
Ted
MVG:
YTD = 12.73%
3yrs. =15.38%
5yrs. = 12.25%
MCV:
YTD=4.04%
3yrs=12.97%
5yrs=9.80%
Source M*

FYI: (Christine Benz's Aggressive T. Rowe Price Retirement Saver Portfolio
Anticipated Time Horizon to Retirement: 40 years )
20%: T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth (PRDGX)
15%: T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 (PREIX)
10%: T. Rowe Price New America Growth (PRWAX)
10%: T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Value (PRSVX)
35%: T. Rowe Price Overseas Stock
5%: T. Rowe Price New Income (PRCIX)
5%: T. Rowe Price Real Assets (PRAFX)
Performance
3-Year Annualized Return: 11.93
( The Linkster's Aggressive T. Rowe Price Retirement Saver Portfolio
Anticipated Time Horizon to Retirement: 40 years )
20%: T. Rowe Price New America Growth (PRWAX)
20% T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 (PREIX)
20% T. Rowe Price Global Technology Fund (PRGTX)
20% T.Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund (PRHSX)
20% T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund (TRBCX)
Performance
3-Year Annualized Return: 19.82
The Entire Article:
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/880485/how-our-t-rowe-price-retirement-saver-portfolios-h.html

As @Ted and I agree with tech. and health exposure.
My particular watch for these two areas is that in the event of a major equity correction; these 2 sectors, as well as the other high fliers in growth will be some of the areas to get picked on the most for profit taking. The big money will come out of the best return areas over the past several years, yes? I'm not concerned at this time; just my open thought here.
Also, dependent upon one's available choices at their vendor; one can decide whether to have broad exposure to health or more narrow sectors. Review the holdings and performance carefully.
Health and tech. are two sectors where I don't regard expense ratios as a particular "evil". I'll guess the average ER for a managed fund is .7%. One can pay this much, too; for a passive managed etf.
Also note that one may already have 15% - 30% exposure to these 2 sectors via an equity growth fund or more broad based equity fund. Perhaps this is your comfort level.
---EXAMPLE: ITOT, I-shares, U.S. equity, broad
--- info tech. = 25%
--- health = 14%
--- finance = 14%
--- telecom = 1.8%
I've not looked deeper into all holdings with this etf; but included finance and telecom; as there may be additional tech. related inside these areas, too.
Note: To the etf list below, an OMG moment. The current best performance from this list is both a small cap and health, too. A great place to be this year, at this point in time; at least from the year's beginning.
In addition to Ted's active fund list, is this list for 47 health related etfs. I set this link with YTD return, but not sure how it will load here or for your use.
Do your homework in the healthcare sector and good fortune, as there are lots of choices.
We remain 50% of total equity exposure with health and tech.
Regards,
Catch

Here is a big chew regarding IRA's for minor's from MFO, 2017 discussion.
@Sven
A tax return is not necessarily a requirement; nor is being a "high school" student.
I surely hope, to the extend allowed annually; that the parent(s) of the child doing modeling or a baby commercial have made the allowable annual Roth contribution. The child does indeed have income, if all things legal are properly set in place.
Take a look again at the national and local level commercials on TV. Those young ones are indeed earning income, yes?
---An add, at least relative to Fidelity; minimums regarding fees and anything related are waived for a minor IRA account as the overall value of the account(s) held by the adult are the baseline for this. Fidelity's recent 10:1 split with some of their managed funds offer an advantage for minor's, too; as if the minor had $250 in their first deposit, they couldn't buy FSPHX at $260/unit. The split now places the price at $26/unit, more or less. Fidelity offers more than enough of their own and I-shares etfs to cover all of the bases for a minor's Roth IRA.
Regards,
Catch

@MFO Members:(If its worth doing, its worth doing right !)
The mutual fund industry currently has $18.9 trillion in total assets, $10.8 trillion of which is held by 10 companies. Here’s a look at the giants of a gigantic industry. Asset figures are through June 30 and were provided by the Investment Company Institute.
The fund companies are ranked by total mutual fund assets, excluding exchange-traded-fund assets.
The totals include long-term assets in stock and bond mutual funds, as well as short-term assets in cash management funds.
Ted
1. Vanguard Group
2. Fidelity Investments
3. Capital Research & Management
4. T. Rowe Price
5. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
6. BlackRock
7. Nuveen
8. Dimensional Funds
9. Franklin Templeton Investments
10. Pimco Funds

FYI: ( Last week catch22 linked an article,https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-15-us-companies-that-are-investing-the-most-in-tomorrows-big-ideas-2018-08-23/print, about how much large pharma companies were spending on R&D. It got me rethinking my asset allocation in healthcare. I held PRHSX for many years, but sold it during the 2016 health sector downturn. I have held PFE since 2006 and have done very well. Tomorrow I will retake a position in PRHSX.)
If you’re looking for that healthy glow, look no further than health care.
That might be hard to imagine, given the sector’s earlier travails. Through May 8, it had dropped 2.4% even as the S&P 500 advanced 0.6%, with the market fretting about the political pressures being brought to bear on drug prices, among other issues.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/why-health-cares-rally-may-be-just-getting-started-1535153121
List Of Health Care Funds:
http://mutualfunds.com/themes/health-biotech-equity-funds/

@Bobpa: In my opinion, for the foreseeable future, a rising tide lifts all boats. I agree with Old-Skeet, and would add SCG.
Regards,
Ted
LCG Funds:
YTD 13.78%
3.yrs 15.02%
5.yrs. 15.05%
MCG Funds:
YTD 13.30%
3yrs. 12.98%
5yrs. 12.49%
SCG Funds:
YTD 19.43%
3yrs. 15.26%
5yrs. 12.60%
SPY:
YTD 8.66%
3yrs. 17.23%
5yrs. 13.76%
Source Lipper

FYI: It might seem odd to open a retirement account for a high school student.
But teenagers can get a big head start on long-term savings, financial advisers say, by stashing some of their earnings in a Roth individual retirement account.
Now is a good time to talk with teenagers about long-term savings using a Roth I.R.A. because they may have earned money from summer jobs, said Patricia A. Seaman, a spokeswoman for the National Endowment for Financial Education, a nonprofit organization that promotes financial literacy.
Teenagers can benefit from tax-free growth of investments in a Roth account years before they have the opportunity to contribute to a workplace retirement plan, Ms. Seaman said. And five decades of growth allows plenty of time to ride out market swings.
“The earlier you start,” Ms. Seaman said, “the more the time value of money works for you.”
A Roth I.R.A. for someone under 18 must be opened and managed by an adult custodian, like a parent or grandparent. The teenager must have earned income, whether from a formal job or from gigs like babysitting and lawn mowing. Children can contribute their total annual earnings up to $5,500.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/your-money/roth-ira-retirement-teenagers.html

CBLDX is now on several platforms - such as Schwab, Fidelity, TD, etc.

At Fido it's shown as a TF fund, $250k minimum (same for taxable and retirement).

@MSF The sentence in the story is:

We included only fund share classes with over $500 million in assets, as the money flows in tiny funds are too volatile.

I am not saying that flows affect the fund's performance, but that in a smaller shareclass of a fund, flows can seem far more erratic because one or two large shareholders of that particular shareclass can have a disproportionate effect on flows. That means flows and thus investor returns may not reflect the experience of the average shareholder but that of just a handful of shareholders driving this small shareclass. These flows do not affect the overall performance of the fund--at least not in an easily measurable way--but have an impact on investor returns in that particular shareclass. It is possible that a small group of shareholders could dramatically affect flows in larger shareclasses of funds, but it is less likely the bigger the shareclass is.

FYI: (The Linkster says, buying GAMR gets you banned from MFO for life. Just thinking about it, suspended for six months.)
With a few squiggles of her electronic pen and nine seconds of computer processing, a data scientist at the Electronic Arts campus here created a life-like mountain range for video gaming. Typically, modeling that terrain by hand would take two weeks.
At another booth at the game maker’s in-house innovation fair, a team used artificial intelligence to simulate boisterous sports announcers, including one that sounded just like the company’s CEO, Andrew Wilson, Australian accent and all.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-videogame-industry-reaches-for-the-cloud-1535155282
M* Snapshot GAMR:
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/ARCX/GAMR/quote.html
A Videogame ETF? Save Your Cash:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-videogame-etf-save-your-cash-2016-03-30/print

Hi @bee, My portfolio is comprised through many years of investing and there are guidelines in place but no hard rules. For instance, the two largest fund holdings are also my oldest at about six percent each (FKINX & AMECX). I decided ... enough is enough ... and, I don't want to keep expanding these two funds so I split some off and open other funds with these being my seed funds for the others. With new money, some gift and inheritance transfers, and taking what the existing funds generated I built what you see. With this I'm thinking new positions to complement the core. Also, a good amount of what you see is also held in taxable accounts. So, I have to consider the tax angle as well.
An exapmle. Currently, NEWFX is the largest position in it's sleeve so I'm thinking of splitting some of it into another fund (DWGAX) through a nav exchange process. This will rebalace NEWFX's sleeve while adding some diverfication to the sleeve that will hold DWGAX. As you can see I have another fund under review for a nav exchange buy (INUTX). So, this is an on going process and done when I felt warranted. Again, gudelines but no hard rules. Generally, no fund starts at less than 5% of its sleeve and becomes no more than 60%. For instance AOFAX is currently 15% of its sleeve, NDVAX 15% and PMDAX 70%. When AOFAX gets built AOFAX is tatgeted to become 20%, NDVAX 20% & PMDAX 60%. PMDAX is held in a taxable account and has been a long term position and through the years of growth become an outsized position within its sleeve. The strategy is not to sell any of PMDAX but to grow the other positions to balance the sleeve with some more buys and natural growth as they should grow faster than PMDAX.
That is why it is important to Xray what you have before starting to tweak.
The below outlines the process and was not posted with the portfolio. Again, no hard rules just guidelines about my sleeve management system.
Old_Skeet's Sleeve Management System
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to better help manage the investments held within mine and my wife's portfolios. The master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves ... an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consist of two sleeves ... a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves ... a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. And, there is the growth area where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five slleves ... a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty/theme sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. Each sleeve (in most cases) consist of three to nine funds with the size and weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds held along with their amounts. By using the sleeve system I can get a better picutre of my overall investment landscape. I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly. My positions and sleeves can be adjusted from time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets through using my market barometer and equity weighting matrix. The matrix is driven by the barometer. All my funds with the exception of those in my health savings account pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio. This automatically builds cash in the cash area to meet the portfolio's disbursements (when necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio's five year average return. In this way principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell transactions settle from, or to, the cash area with some net asset exchanges between funds taking place.
See the portfolio for asset allocation ranges for each area. Sleeve and fund weightings are known but not listed.

(Curiously, I was able to read it directly; no tricks, no special software. Though I am on a new machine, and Barron's might be counting articles.)
A nit to pick: FBTCX and FBIOX are not different share classes of the same fund, but shares of two different, albeit it similar funds. (For example, they have a different #3 holding as of 6/30/18.)
I agree that which share class you look at likely does affect investor return data. As I commented in this thread, the selling point for C shares is that they are supposedly better for people who only want to own the shares for a year or two. (Or even less.)
So it might be interesting to look M (formerly T) shares or A shares of Fidelity Advisor Biotech. Since M* doesn't have 10 year investor data for A shares ($787million), I pulled up the investor data for M shares ($127million). Despite the small share class size.
Small funds (under $500K) were excluded in the article because they are more likely to have erratic cash flows making their performance too volatile. All well and good.But that's not a reason to exclude share classes of large funds. The small size of a share class doesn't affect the fund performance. If anything, because a share class is small, its investors will have a smaller impact on the fund performance.
Over the ten year period ending 6/30/18, M* reports:
FBIOX: 12.73% (investor return), 17.15% (fund return) - matches Barron's reported M* data
FBTTX: 11.88% (investor return), 15.86% (fund return)
FBTCX: 5.97% (investor return), 15.35% (fund return) - matches Barron's reported M* data
Similar gaps between investor returns and fund returns for FBIOX and FBTTX. So at least here, it doesn't look like the existence of a load or the popularity of a fund matter. What might matter more is whether the shares are designed/marketed for shorter term trading (such as C shares).
More generally there are various confounding factors that aren't sorted out. Do investors do well in cheaper funds because they have more patience when the fund costs less (as speculated)? Or perhaps it is because "high expense funds have much more volatile risk-adjusted returns", and it's just the volatility that affects investor behavior?
Livingston, Zhou, 2016, The Volatility of Mutual Fund Performance, http://www.fmaconferences.org/Vegas/Papers/QUANTILE-12-31-2015.pdf

@MFO Members: Six funds with these percentages.
Regards,
Ted
IVV=36.5%
PONCX=20.9%
QQQ=20.6%
MSOPX=10.9%
TRBCX=8.0%
MVRXX=2.8%
YTD Returns:
QQQ-17.60%
TRBCX= 16.70%
MSOPX= 10.94%
IVV= 8.69%
PONCX= -(.78%)
MVRXX=$1.00= Yield 1.83%