Good column (and not pay-walled). The bright spots, such as they are, in his projections are that although he doesn't expect the market to beat inflation in the next several years, he's also not expecting a crash near term. Also, over the longer term (two decades) he expects stocks to beat inflation by 2.8%.
I agree with Lewis (and Grantham) that workers are being treated worse than in "days of yore". However, I think Grantham's view of pension funds in the past is a bit on the rosy side. Pensions were used to lock in employees (30 year requirement to benefit), used as an excuse for paying lower wages, used to lavish benefits on management, perennially underfunded, and often bankrupt (think Studebaker). ERISA protections didn't come along until 1974, and by 1980 you had 401(k)s appearing.
NYTimes Magazine article 2005: The End of Pensions.

In September 2015 most real estate funds were badly damaged. I threw a little at OREAX (Oppenheimer) and caught a good bounce over the next 6 -12 months. But since the bounce ended, the fund hasn’t moved much either way (since about mid 2016). Still have it. Seems very much to move with interest rates - rising when rates are expected to fall and falling when they appear likely to rise. Rumor or anticipation of rate changes will often cause a reaction. So the Fed Chair nomination recently might have influenced markets. Remember, too, that rates had risen considerably in recent weeks before falling back abruptly in the past week or so.
I also agree with others here that changes in deductibility of mortgage interest would affect values.
These funds vary quite a bit in their approaches. Helps explain why different funds’ returns vary widely over short periods. A given fund may hold office buildings, malls, self-storage facilities, apartment complexes, hotel chains and mobile home park operations - to name a few. I wouldn’t be surprised if some even held mortgage companies and the like for diversity. Don’t have any strong sense about where values will go next. I don’t mind holding a little for diversity. But these funds are very cyclical and subject to pretty substantial trends both on the way up and on the way down.
FWIW - T. Rowe considers real estate a “hard asset” and incorporates a substantial amount in their Real Assets fund (PRAFX).
Are real estate funds a bargain? Don’t know about that. Not seeing anything that looks terribly beaten up out there.

There are parts I agree with, and parts where I see things differently.
I agree that the intent was likely, at least in part, to prevent gaming the system. I make multiple/excess conversions in a year. Then after I see how each investment has done and how much I need to roll back to stay within a tax bracket, I select which investments and how much of each to undo. I'm sure there are others here who do something similar.
All perfectly legal, and all gaming the system. Heads I win, tails the IRS loses.
A simplified version of this is: if the market goes up, keep the conversion. If the market goes down, back it all out. Ed Slott doesn't see this as gaming. I disagree. Still, heads I win, tails the IRS loses.
Ed Slott thinks that if this provision passes, you won't be able to undo your 2017 conversions after December 31, 2017. I read the proposal differently. He's certainly being more conservative, and that's probably good, especially for an advisor.
What the proposed legislation says is: "EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
this section [removing the ability to recharacterize] shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017."
I take that as meaning that you will not be able to recharacterize anything for tax year 2018. Recharacterizing your 2017 conversions, whenever it is done, applies to tax year 2017.
As supporting evidence, I point to the wording in the current code (which would be deleted):

if, on or before the due date for any taxable year, a taxpayer transfers in a trustee-to-trustee transfer any contribution to an individual retirement plan made during such taxable year from such plan to any other individual retirement plan, such contribution shall be treated as having been made to the transferee plan

A bit of a mouthful, but basically saying that if you undo your tax year 2017 Roth conversion by Oct 15, 2018, it's treated as if you'd just moved the money from your traditional IRA back into a traditional IRA in tax year 2017.
Of course this isn't advice, Ed could be right, or the law might not be changed at all.

WSJ: You’ve famously called profit margins the most mean-reverting data set in finance. What’s keeping them high now?
MR. GRANTHAM:Some outsized margins are structural—the brand power of large corporations. I think what is [also] going on is new-fashioned bullying, not the old-fashioned monopoly. Bully politicians into getting favorable legislation. Bully the Justice Department into going to sleep. Bully regulatory agencies. It’s the power of corporations—better regulations and favoritism for giant companies.

WSJ: Is this high-profit-margin situation an unusual one for capitalism?
MR. GRANTHAM: The U.S. form of capitalism has lost its way. The social contract was previously in good shape. Corporations looked after their employees. They were more paternalistic. Great pension funds were starting up. The CEOs were increasing income alongside their workers. CEOs earned more than 40 times workers. Today, that number is 350 times, and the system has gone to hell. Keynes, Schumpeter—and Marx, not to mention—thought, by their nature, corporations and capitalism would overreach simply because they could. Corporations would use their advantages to get more power and more money. Their share of the pie would increase, and cause society to push back. Sooner or later there will be a pushback.

The two things he left out are technology and globalization. Quite frankly the social contract between corporations and labor in the U.S. has been broken for some time. Companies don't need most employees anymore, so they don't treat them well but as disposable parts. Some of the largest companies actually don't have so many employees or if they do only a handful are key people that aren't easily replaced or outsource-able overseas. Remember those lines in Death of a Salesman: "A man is not a piece of fruit. You can't eat the orange and throw the peel away." That is precisely what companies can do with tech and globalization. Almost everyone's an orange now, and I'm not sure how people push back locally when companies function globally. All of which is good for the stock market but rather bad for humanity--or at least developed nations.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Tax professionals are ringing alarm bells that a House proposal unveiled last week deserves financial advisers' attention. Should the measure become law, taxpayers who decided to convert a Roth IRA to a traditional, or pre-tax, individual retirement account, would no longer be allowed to elect to change it back to a Roth within a certain time frame. And that means advisers should be checking in on clients about Roths before the start of 2018, said Ed Slott, founder of Ed Slott's Elite IRA Advisor Group in a conversation with InvestmentNews reporter Greg Iacurci.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=AH8BWtDnA8y3jwTe5qeAAQ&q=Ed+Slott+on+Roth+IRA+conversions+becoming+permanent&oq=Ed+Slott+on+Roth+IRA+conversions+becoming+permanent&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1.4590.4590.0.7188.3.2.0.0.0.0.93.93.1.2.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..1.2.178.6..35i39k1.85.2pswNHS_oXI

FYI: (This is a follow-up article.)
With the S&P 500 up more than 15% this year, it may be time for a reality check. To that end, we spoke with Jeremy Grantham, co-founder and chief investment strategist at Boston-based money manager Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co. and a noted spotter of market bubbles.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeremy-grantham-predicted-two-previous-bubbles-and-now-1509937980

FYI: We again asked experts to help us answer readers’ questions about saving for college. This month, it starts with an overarching concern parents have about “529” college-savings plans when thinking about how to pay for school.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-529s-affect-financial-aid-1509937920?tesla=y

Hi @msf
Yes, the Nov.2 date you noted was part of what stuck in my mind when I saw the big bump up in real estate Monday morning (having scanned through the bill in a hasty fashion.....the mortgage area was in the back of my mind, too). This being part of the subject line (the legislation) for this post, as I found nothing else to trigger a big, single day move in U.S. real estate investments. It appears that the real kicker is the proposal below:
Well, perhaps this is/was the kick for real estate.....text indicates holding period changes related to several areas, including real estate partnerships.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/06/top-house-tax-writer-kevin-brady-we-will-put-in-the-two-year-holding-period-on-carried-interest.html
---Multiple links related to Brady and real estate partnerships holding periods. Redundant, of course; but you may find one of interest
https://www.google.com/search?q=kevin+brady+real+estate+partnership+holding+period&oq=kevin+brady+real+estate+partnership+holding+period&aqs=chrome..69i57.25686j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
'Course, all of this is tentative, yes? So, what the proposed changes "gave" to real estate for one day may also quickly disappear. A traders delight.....of which, I am not.

Not related to funds, but to the subject - real estate ... sumthin' in the works with tax reform thingy:
The draft says that a reduced ($500K) mortgage deduction cap applies to all mortgages originating after Nov. 2. That means that people currently buying $500K+ homes are facing a risk that this change passes and their mortgage isn't as deductible as they had planned.
The mere existence of that possibility should soften demand for higher priced homes. While there's been a lot written about possible impact in the future, I'm wondering about current impact, because unlike most tax provisions, this one would apply retroactively to Nov 2.

@catch22: XLRE up 1.53% today .
Regards,
Ted

Hi @expatsp
As I noted, the fund isn't high on the category list at M* against equity style RE funds; and just kinda chugs along with a decent yield and cap. gains. The fund did take about a -32% hit during the market melt.
I suppose the fund for our house, is our toe in real estate (about 10% of our portfolio) that many would consider the "chicken" side of investing in this area. :) I have not checked, but presume our "real estate" equity among other broad based funds adds another few percentage points of exposure to this sector.
Composition:
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/composition/316389865?type=sq-NavBar
Chart from Sept. 2004 to date:
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?FRIFX,IYR,RWR,VNQ,PETDX&n=3296&O=011000

Real estate funds have been a bit stinky for most of 2017 with hops and drops here and there. Perhaps today is just a value play on a sector that has been down. The up pricing is not related to a big move in investment grade bond yields. The below %'s have held from the opening.......will check the finish later today.
Our holding in this area is FRIFX. This fund is not a rocket up or down relative to other RE funds; as the fund is a 50/50 equity/bond mix; a unique fund in the sector.
FREL = + 1.3%
IYR = + 1.1%
RWR = +.8%
VNQ = + .6%

FYI: First came the Panama Papers, which revealed personal financial information about wealthy individuals and public officials that had previously been kept private.
Now, the latest shitstorm to come from a hack of a law firm is the Paradise Papers: The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists received the world’s second biggest data leak, consisting of offshore financial records, purporting to expose a global array of corruption:
Regards,
Ted
http://ritholtz.com/2017/11/paradise-papers/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheBigPicture+(The+Big+Picture)
MarketWatch Slant:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/paradise-papers-6-things-to-know-about-report-exposing-tax-havens-of-the-mega-rich-2017-11-05/print

Hello,
In viewing the mutual fund list it is reflected that ACSTX (Invesco Comstock A) is the #1 fund and up 113.04%. Actually, this is an error as ACSTX is up 12.98% and trailing the S&P 500 Index. After seeing this error I went no further in the list.
Old_Skeet

On the Contrarian side Energy Services (maybe FSESX) might be ready for upward revision. Down 20% (down over 40% for 3 yrs) according to Ted's link.

Or, Select Energy (FSENX) down 9.7%:

Also, long term (10 yr) being long:
Oil Distribution Services/ Energy (VGENX)
Commodities/PM(PCRDX, PSPFX, USAGX, VGPMX, etc),
Eastern Europe(TREMX, EUROX),
Latin America
Gold (pick your fund) and of course,
HSGFX was not good for your portfolio.
Maybe there is a "needle in the haystack" on this side of the ledger.

@Bitzer, AQR LSE and EMN are both closed to new investors anyhow. But fyi, in case they reopen, they were available at Fidelity (and maybe other brokerages, dunno) in IRAs for $2,500 minimum and even less in group retirement accounts. See the Fees & Distributions page.

FYI: Opportunistic misfires, middling results, and rising expenses have led us to cut Harbor International's Analyst Rating to Silver.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=834516
Lipper Snapshot HANIX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/hainx
HAINX Is Ranked #56 In The (FLB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/foreign-large-blend/harbor-international-fund/hainx

FYI: U.S. investors have poured into “risk-parity funds” in the last few years. Advocates say the complicated strategy of investing in stocks, bonds and commodities offers better returns than traditional balanced funds that invest in a mix of stocks and bonds.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.ajc.com/business/atlanta-money-manager-brings-sophisticated-mutual-fund-main-street/BJ524YWOYIG0g8rTRR3UnN/
M* Tactical Allocation Fund Returns:
http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/tactical-allocation/$FOCA$TV.aspx

In general, if I were 30-40 years from retirement I’d prefer to use a pre-tax program like the Traditional IRA. At 10 years from retirement I’d begin transitioning (through Roth contributions and/or conversions). At 60+ I very much like the Roth concept. So these considerations affect my view of the anticipated change (not favorably).
Reason: I have no confidence in being able to anticipate the rules of the road as Congress, the executive branch and federal courts may define them 65-75 years from now (anticipating 35-40 years of making contributions and 30-35 years of withdrawing money. The “promise” of tax exempt contributions exists now. Use it. The promise of tax exempt withdrawals in 75 years is anybody’s guess. I do, however, have a somewhat higher predictive confidence for 20-30 years out. So for a shorter time frame like that, I’ll take my chances transitioning to a Roth-type product.
Memory is a funny thing, especially with politicians. Who knows what the federal budget, tax collection needs and political mood of the nation will be so far out? For some perspective - 75 years ago (1942): Pearl Harbor had just been attacked, FDR was President, the interstate highway system hadn’t yet been built, and the setting for one of my favorite films was taking shape along Nantucket Beach (BTW - not the actual filming location).

Short summary - I haven't been able to find any Obama Roth IRA taxation proposal that would amount to double taxation. Further, the most obvious way of taxing Roths - making the earnings (but not contributions) taxable - would neither amount to double taxation nor be feasible to implement in any case.
----------
Obama floated a lot of ideas regarding IRAs, but I'm having a real problem finding any proposal that wold amount to double taxation of Roth IRAs (i.e. taxation of money in (as is done now) and taxation of the same money (not its earnings) on the way out.
Taxing the earnings would simply make the Roth look like a nondeductible IRA, which no one says is double taxation. A scheme like that would be, IMHO, virtually impossible to implement. That's because taxpayers typically discard records of Roth contributions (and conversions after the five year waiting period is up). So they can't identify what part of a Roth distribution constitutes earnings. In contrast, when you make a nondeductible IRA contribution, you file a Form 8606, and each year after that carry over the information into the current year's tax filing.
Getting back to whether Obama ever proposed double taxing Roths. The best I've been able to find is this statement suggesting that Obama's proposed cap of 28% on the tax benefit (exclusion from income or tax deduction) would result in double taxation. The page notes that this was a new proposal for for FY2017 (2016), i.e. for Obama's last budget.
http://www.pension-specialists.com/hottopics/0216Obama.pdf (item #1)
Under this proposal as described, if you contributed to a traditional IRA, and you were in the 33% tax bracket, you'd pay 5% (33% minus 28%) on your "deductible" contribution, and as the "streamlined" summary appears to read, also pay income tax when you withdrew that contribution. But that's for a traditional IRA, not a Roth.
Further, the government proposal anticipated this problem and addressed it. Here's the full set of FY2017 (2016) proposals:
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/General-Explanations-FY2017.pdf
On pp. 153-154 (pdf pp. 164-165) you'll find the proposal in question. It says that "If a deduction or exclusion for contributions to retirement plans or IRAs is limited by this proposal, then the taxpayer’s basis will be adjusted to reflect the additional tax imposed."
In other words, instead of treating the money coming out as having a zero basis, the cost would be increased (on paper) so that the taxpayer doesn't pay that extra 5% a second time. Part of the contribution would be treated as a nondeductible contribution (which is what it really would be).
I don't see this proposal affecting Roths at all, but given the special handling of traditional IRAs to ensure there's no double taxation, it seems highly unlikely that the same issue wouldn't be addressed, assuming that Roths are even covered by the proposal.