Yes, and increasingly higher, for God knows what justification --- the base charged fees have gone to 1.1%, 1.25%, and more.
They reduce w/ higher assets; if you turn over millions, they go under 1%, and increasingly well under (marginal).
There are institutional advisers (yours is one, maybe, being w/ ML?), whom one is always advised to stay away from by indies even though many do very good work, whose fees are lower sometimes, or were back in the day, because they were getting spiffed from placing you in the institution's funds and paying said brokerage small fees for stock transactions. The pricing revolution of the last decade has reduced much of that, I hear.

I've become rather disenchanted with bonds and consequently find the paper's arguments less than persuasive. In part because I question why, at least for long term investors, volatility should even matter. Long term a pure stock portfolio wins out; even over "just" a decade, stocks win out around 80% of the time.
In part, because bonds have done worse than the graphic suggests. A common complaint with the US aggregate bond index is that it is heavily weighted toward federal bonds. They have significantly less risk. In 2008 "Lower-risk Treasury-backed debt whipped most fixed-income categories, while company-issued bonds and more daring overseas debt suffered a similarly grim fate as stocks."
This is not to suggest that bonds have near the risk of stocks, simply that the numbers don't tell the full story.
If you're investing for income, then you're investing behind the "efficient frontier", which is okay. But I'm more interested in total earnings, whether that comes from coupons or dividends or capital gains.
I do agree that bonds can serve a very useful role if you "must meet an expense at a particular time in the future. " For that, see bond immunization. The simplest form of immunization is just buying a zero bond that matures when you need the money. No reinvestment risk, and bond (as opposed to cash) rate of return.
In one sense, absence of reinvestment risk makes zeros less risky than coupon bonds. Sure there's the risk that rates will rise and you'll be stuck with your low YTM zero. However, coupon bonds have a similar risk - you're still stuck with the bond paying low coupons. That is somewhat mitigated by the fact that you are getting cash out (interest payments) that you can reinvest at a higher rate, if rates rise. But if rates fall instead of rise, you lose because you reinvest those interest payments at lower rates. That's the reinvestment risk.
Regarding not knowing markup: at least for munis, there's EMMA. Enter a CUSIP in the search box here, and you get not only real time trades, but information about the type of trade (inter-dealer, customer buy, customer sell), that let's you estimate markups in real time as well. Different markups by different dealers.

MikeW,
Will you be able to keep the Thrift Savings Plan?
Often, at retirement, these plans can no longer be contributed to and may also have to be transferred out of the Thrift Savings Plan. This was the case for a relative who work for a government employer (military) who recently retired a few months ago.

I'm not that familiar with TSP (all I know is what I read in the papers). Still, the situation you're describing sounds unusual.
TSP holds itself out as " similar to a 401(k) plan in the private sector." In the private sector, by law you must be allowed to keep your money in your 401(k) so long as you have at least $5K there.
Many plans allow you to keep your money even if you have a lesser amount. With TSP, "If your vested account balance is $200 or more, you can leave your entire account with the TSP until the account withdrawal deadline." The deadline it's talking about is just the usual rule that RMDs begin the later of age 70.5 or separation from service.
https://www.tsp.gov/PlanParticipation/LoansAndWithdrawals/withdrawals/index.html
It's pretty obvious that someone who is not working for an employer cannot make payroll contributions to that employer's sponsored plan (TSP, 401(k), 403(b), etc.) But TSP seems very flexible in the types of other post-retirement contributions it allows.
It accepts rollovers from IRAs and transfers from retirement plans at other employers. "Not only can you leave your money with the TSP, you can simplify your financial life by moving money from plans into your TSP account." However, it doesn't look like it can accommodate Roth money, as it limits IRA rollovers to traditional IRAs.
https://www.tsp.gov/PlanParticipation/EligibilityAndContributions/RolloversTransfers/index.html

Tough holdings for me since 1/26/2018:
SFGIX (actively managed) & VWO (EMM Index)- Both down almost 15 % in steady decline. Active management doesn't seem to be offering much downside protection:

FSUTX has done very well compared to the Utility Index:

FSRPX has buck the trend of (87% Consumer Cyclical & 10% Consumer Defensive) as a result of their choices / weighting in this sector.

FYI: The waiting game for new highs in the S&P 500 continues has lasted a bit longer than it was looking like it would last at this point a week ago. Even though the S&P 500 hasn’t moved much at the index level, though, many of its components have seen big moves. The table below summarizes the average performance of individual S&P 500 components grouped according to sector since the 1/26 closing high. Leading the way higher, Utilities have been the leading sector with an average gain of just under 5%, but right on the Utilities sector’s heels is Technology where stocks in the sector are up an average of 4.2%. Besides these two sectors, the only two other sectors where the average stock is up since 1/26 are Real Estate and Energy. To the downside, in three sectors (Consumer Staples, Materials, and Financials), the average stock is down over 7%. That’s quite an average decline for an index that is within 2% of record highs.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/sector-performance-breakdown-since-the-126-peak/

Not often mentioned, but another planning topic is your debt to income ratio. Prior to retirement I had very good credit (partly due to my low debt to a higher working income). This "debt to income ratio" will change instantly in the first months of retirement...probably due to a lower income... and as a result your credit score may suffer. More importantly you will qualify for less credit.
I applied for a 30 year mortgage (actually a 15/15 ARM @ a rate of 2.875 fixed for the first 15 years) and also took additional cash out on this loan. I planned to use the cash for home improvements that I knew I now had time to do myself (retirement offers time to do this) as well as serve as a on demand cash for opportunities. Another story for another time, but cash was king back in 2010.
This decision to refinance my home loan prior to retirement effectively locked in my principle/interest payments for 15 years into retirement and since I completed this process while I was still working I qualified for a much larger mortgage due to my higher "debt to income ratio".

Usually about 9.95 dollars per transaction of 5k of bonds at Vanguard, that the only fee you pay. Most bonds pay biyearly div. We use these div to buy more stocks or bonds after once collected. At schwab no fees but the price us slightly higher for same bond.
So if u have 100 cents on dollar yield 5% for instance next year u have 105, 2 year after you have 110.5 Compoundedafter yr 3 u have 116.025. The problem maybe you have to hold bond until it mature.... If the stock bankrupt u loose all the funds put into individual bond.... Been doing this for 8+yrs only 2 defaults so I was very lucky lost about 7 or 8 k... Probably have over few hundreds bonds now
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Bond+investing
We previously had Zions Direct and cost 4.98 per transaction but they recently went out of bonds broker business. We rolled over and transferred all our funds to Vanguard since
You can get Google. Com/alert 'att bankrup' and put alert on the bond u hold (catch taught me this in 2010 $$thx Catch!!!) and get immediate alerts if company have problems and decide to sell bonds quickly if u think bond has bad news going forward

"Zeroes," of course, you buy at a discount to face value.

And the reason they’re priced below face value is that you have to hold them until maturity to get that face value out of them. Until than, they’re generally worth less (although interest rate fluctuations in the broader market could temporarily drive their market value higher or lower)
But “face value” (what they’re worth at maturity) never changes. The biggest risk with zeros (assuming you hold them until maturity) is that the rate at which they were priced may appear very low compared to rates by the time you redeem them. For example, a zero priced to yield 5% to maturity in 20 years might seem attractive today. But if in 10 years 10% yields become common, you’re going to be a bit unhappy holding that 5% zero with still another 10 years left to maturity.
Just a fly by the seat of the pants calculation - Today you might buy a zero yielding 5% annually and maturing in 2038 (20 years from now ) with a face value of $2650 for a price of $1000. Sounds like a discount. But is it really?

@davfor
I wandered a bit from your subject post, relating to the Mackinac Bridge in the article photo; which has a 5 mile span connecting the lower and upper peninsulas of Michigan.
As to the subject, I'm not sure why NYT chose this particular piece; but Mr. Lee is likely not wrong about possibilities. There is a very large boat load of money in the form of bond issuance globally.
If one were to envision the financial markets perched upon an eight leg stool of bonds and other cash substitutes; not all legs would have to break to cause a problem.
CDS (credit default swaps); being insurance against bond defaults and other forms of derivatives are still in place, not unlike the market melt 10 years ago. CDS instruments, to the best of my knowledge are still not monitored or under scrutiny by any official agency, U.S. or global. Although I am sure the Fed. and U.S. Treasury know the amounts.
Apologies for the thread drift via the "bridge".....I don't like or appreciate excessive thread drift either.
Regards,
Catch

@Old_Joe, This book should help unconfuse you. https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Farm-George-Orwell/dp/8187138750/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1534117656&sr=8-3&keywords=animal+farm+by+george+orwell
Your homework, in addition to reading this book, is to memorize these prophetic words from it: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Than you are to compose a 50-word or longer piece of expository prose about it in which you are not allowed to mention @Ted.

The two funds I mentioned now have $1 million minimums and are closed. I bought them when Fidelity had $2500 minimum for retirement accounts, so I'm hesitant to exit my positions.

Right... You don't really care what happen yo the market if you hold individual bonds vs etf or bond funds. You Don't pay Er preload or afterload. Of course etf or bond funds are more diverse. As long as stock Do not bankrupt bond will continue to pay div until matures. you will be ok
.?? If that do you stand to gain 20%versuse losing 15% in any given yr or if you are just being happy to gain 7% per yr no matter what Happen to market and hold bond until matutity.
Imho you probably need a good mixture of stocks and bond both dependent how much risks you have to take .

The size of an investors portfolio vs budget is the most important discussion with a financial planner IMHO. This will drive asset allocation and risk tolerance. The age of the investor is the most critical component of that discussion as you noted. 100 % S&P 500 is a very aggressive portfolio. I believe in a balanced portfolio with income producing instruments. My personal AA preference is the "pay your bills first" method which requires income producers. All new investors should consult a financial professional.

... I personally have decided to use the S&P 500 and stop further in depth allocations such as much discussed finer granular reits, mlp's, utilities etc. S&P500 contains all of the aforementioned within the index. ... The argument can be made for more granularity outperforming the S&P500, but i will live with the simple solution. I like the fact mutual funds can easily reinvest dividends/cap gains if needed while some ETF's cannot (easily). I also like the fact that by the nature of the SP500 index it gradually picks the winners for me and discards the losers. just my 2c.

Hi shipwreckedandalone,
Thanks for commenting. (Worth a lot more than 2c). All valid points. It’s not clear to me whether this represents a portion of your total invested assets or all of them. I suspect it’s the former. That said, I don’t think the argument for real estate or any other granular asset class rests only on maximizing return. There may be other considerations like diversifying assets (and hopefully mitigating risk), increasing income stream, hedging against the unexpected (rampant inflation, depression, war, tax law changes, etc.)
If I were age 25-40 and gainfully employed I’d be inclined to put 100% into growth (even possibly the S&P 500) and let her ride come Hell or high-water. A single fund (2 or 3 at most) would work fine. Even at age 40-50 that might make sense - but would require a stronger risk appetite. At 70 or older (with perhaps a 20-year life expectancy I believe an all-growth portfolio foolhearty, unless one is trying to build assets for posterity (estate planning). In that case, long as your own funding is assured for your lifetime, a 100% growth portfolio might still make sense.
To glean an appreciation of how much a 100% S&P 500 investment can fall in a relatively short time we need go back hardly more than a single decade (from Wikepedia): “The US bear market of 2007–2009 was a 17-month bear market that lasted from October 9th 2007 to March 9th 2009, during the financial crisis of 2007-2009. The S&P 500 lost approximately 50% of its value.”
Now - to sit still and endure the pain for 17 consecutive months while watching your total investment egg fall by 50% takes a great deal of intestinal fortitude. And, remember that on March 8, 2009 after 17 months of free-fall, there was no guarantee the market would reverse direction. History has taught that these downturns can persist for much longer. If an index can tumble 50% in 17 months ... it can just as easily fall 60 or 70% over a longer time. No law says it has to stop at 50%. (It’s likely real estate fared even worse during that period.)
In a nutshell, it depends a great deal on your life situation and ability to endure punishment. I think all of us could do a better job relating our age and years to / into retirement when discussing our allocations. One size does not fit all. Such understanding might benefit the younger newbies - if any.
PS: Just my humble mumble. I am not a qualified advisor. Other points of view welcomed.

FYI: The chances of a recession by the end of 2020 are mounting. And the prospects for the American stock market in the next decade have worsened appreciably.
Those are prognoses, not facts. But they’re not just offhand projections, either. They are the sober assessments of Vanguard, the $5 trillion asset management firm. And they suggest that the current good times may amount to a reprieve: an opportunity to make sure that you are prepared for a storm.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/business/vanguard-recession-economy.html

REIT's are a valid asset class and can certainly be used in a portfolio. Of course you can post this on the Boglehead board, as there are many Bogleheads that use REITS and there are a large number of Bogleheads that do not use the 3 fund portfolio. You may want to visit 150 portfolio sight, there you will see 150 different modeled portfolios, many of which use REIT's. David Swensen who manages Yale endowment recommends 20% in REITs. See:
https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/150-portfolios-better-than-yours/

Hi @johnN: A good read as to why bonds need to be part of an investors asset allocation. Currently, bonds are about 25% of Old_Skeet's asset allocation. A few years ago I was at about 30% bonds but gradually reduced to add some convertibles, commodities, business development, infrastructure, and real estate. Now, I'm thinking since equities are fully valued it's time to start gradually increasing my bond allocation back towards the 30% range. This should not be to hard to do as my portfolio generates a good bit of excess cash over and above what I take as distributions. My late father had a saying ..."Income never goes out of style."

>> I also like the fact that by the nature of the SP500 index it gradually picks the winners for me and discards the losers
Speaking of that slow process, you sound like one who might enjoy having part of your SP500 holding be the CAPE etn.

I have gone round and round though the years about the issue of how granular a portfolio should be. I think a REIT allocation is probably good, however I personally have decided to use the S&P 500 and stop further in depth allocations such as much discussed finer granular reits, mlp's, utilities etc. S&P500 contains all of the aforementioned within the index so I will stop there. The SP500 holds 3% reits and utilities so good enough for me. The argument can be made for more granularity outperforming the S&P500, but i will live with the simple solution. I like the fact mutual funds can easily reinvest dividends/cap gains if needed while some ETF's cannot (easily). I also like the fact that by the nature of the SP500 index it gradually picks the winners for me and discards the losers. just my 2c.