As Hank wrote, salary reduction is a pre-tax contribution to an employer-sponsored retirement plan (401(k), 403(b), SIMPLE IRA, etc.) that allows you to defer income. In contrast, salary deduction does not reduce your current income.
A salary deduction is a contribution to the retirement plan made by having the employer "deduct" the money from your paycheck. What isn't clear from the question is whether the employer is treating this as a "classic" (pre-Roth-era) after-tax contribution to the plan or a contribution to a "Roth Option" within the plan. See IRS's "Types of Employee Contributions" here.
The old-style after-tax contributions come out tax free (like Roth contributions), but their earnings are taxable (like traditional contributions). The good news is that a fairly new (2014) IRS rule makes it easier to roll over those pre-tax contributions (still not the earnings, though) into a Roth IRA. So once you leave the company, you can move the pre-tax money into a Roth making future earnings tax-free.
The Roth Option that's attached to an employer plan (401k, etc.) is still part of that plan and still has the same withdrawal restrictions as the pre-tax (salary reduction) money. It's not the same as a Roth IRA. As the IRS writes: "the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions."
It is important to keep the vehicles straight: there are employer plans (401k, etc.) and IRAs. Roth is a modifier meaning "after tax, and earnings may be tax-free". There are Roth 401(k)s (and 403(b)s, etc.), and there are Roth IRAs. In employer plans, in addition to Roth option contributions there are "classic" after-tax contributions.
The total contributions you make to an employer plan via pre-tax and Roth Option moneys is limited to $18K (plus possible catch-up). This is independent of whatever you contribute to an IRA, which has its own limit.
The "classic" after-tax contributions are not restricted by this limit. They are subject to a total defined contribution limit (employer plus employee contributions) of $53,000.
In case I've been as clear as mud, here's M*'s writeup of pre-tax vs. Roth vs. after-tax:
Should You Make Aftertax Contributions to Your 401(k)?

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^RUT+Interactive#{"range":"10y","allowChartStacking":true}
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^GSPC+Interactive#{"range":"5y","allowChartStacking":true}
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^IXIC+Interactive#{"range":"5y","allowChartStacking":true}
Sometimes you have to step back and look at the big picture. It looks like a down trend to me.

In other news: https://ir.citi.com/hsq32Jl1m4aIzicMqH8sBkPnbsqfnwy4Jgb1J2kIPYWIw5eM8yD3FY9VbGpK%2Baax

Is Your Mutual Fund a Climate Change Denier or Climate Champion?
http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/15/mutual-fund-climate-change/
T. Rowe Price increased its support for company climate change proposals (not just the disclosures discussed in the original article) from 11% in 2014 to 24% in 2015, though I have my doubts about any significance in that trend. More important is that while T. Rowe Price's record was much better than families like Vanguard, Fidelity, and American Century that supported not a single shareholder resolution, it was way behind other families like Allianz and GMO that supported resolutions over 70% of the time.
See article for full data and background info.

FYI: I must say I didn’t see it coming. But yesterday brought a highly significant development in the campaign for greater transparency in asset management. Speaking at Prime Minister’s Question Time, David Cameron expressed concern that lack of understanding of the true costs of investing is “sapping people’s enthusiasm” for saving for retirement.
He was responding to a question by the Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, who recently discovered that the total charges on his own investment portfolio were “more than 5% a year” as a proportion of his assets, or “about triple what I had originally calculated”.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.evidenceinvestor.co.uk/first-it-was-obama-now-cameron-speaks-out-on-fund-fees/

Hi hank,
Although the purists will shoot me, the 403B is sort of the municipal version of the 401K of the private sector and the 457 at the state level. All forms of deferred compensation, albeit with minor differences (much less today than in the past).
Hawk has the first question. Is there any employer match they she can capture (e.g. Michigan's DC pension puts in 4% and will match up to 3% more if the employee contributes equaling a total of 10% going in.
The second question is about investment choices and transparency as to fees.
Third is trading platform choices.
Michigan was the cat's ass. I had online brokerage options via the Fido network for both my 401K and my 457 and it cost me $50 a year for each.
At the other end of the spectrum was wife's original with Ma Bell. 5 choices of 'house' funds without ticker symbols and trading was limited to once a month on the last day of the month. Take it or leave it. teehehe ;-) I still parlayed Iraq I into a sizeable gain buying after the market puked.
feh, only lemons? anyone got any vodka?
and so it goes,
peace,
rono

Thanks @BenWP
From the Annual Report
Fund Asset Allocation
The CV (The Contrarian Value team led by Steve Romick), will decide how much of the Company will be
invested in equities and fixed income securities, having made
such asset allocation decisions for more than two decades. The
amount invested in equities will be relatively similar to the equity
exposure in the CV Strategy—a derivative of bottom-up equity
investment decisions. For example, in a sharp market decline,
the CV team may decide to take advantage of buying opportu-
nities that may drive a different asset allocation, one more ex-
posed to equities. The AFI team will have responsibility for
investing the balance in fixed income securities.
http://www.sourcecapitalinc.com/docs/default-document-library/2015-12_source-capital_annual.pdf?sfvrsn=4
I wonder if Mr Romick would ever use the leverage that C E F's can use if buying opportunities became extremely compelling ? Wow !
Also
As of 4/28/2016
Share
Price NAV Premium/Discount
$37.71 $39.70 -5.01%
Effective Leverage (USD): $0.000M
http://www.cefconnect.com/fund/SOR
From FPACX 1st Q Letter Dated April 27th
Investing
Our focus on delivering risk-adjusted returns causes us to follow our own path. This might be
uncomfortable at times but, as Seth Klarman wrote in a recent Baupost letter, "You don't become a value
investor for the group hugs."
We're not going to beat the market (nor meet our stated objective of
delivering market rates of return with less risk) by investing the same way the market does. For instance,
we won't ever have the same sector exposures as the market. Sometimes, we'll own a lot of financials -
like we do now - but sometimes we'll own none. The sum total of this means that our returns, when
compared to the market over short and intermediate periods, might differ wildly, possibly making us
appear unusually smart or stupid.
http://www.fpafunds.com/docs/quarterly-commentaries-crescent-fund/fpa-crescent-q1-2016-commentary_final.pdf?sfvrsn=6

Hi Hawk,
(Added late): Here's a substantive publication explaining the difference between deduction and reduction. http://www.ofm.wa.gov/policy/25.50.htm. It's been too long since I contributed to a 403B (20 years), but some of the fog is clearing as I read this. A 403B actually represents deferred income. That's why you're able to defer paying taxes on the income. A Roth, by contrast, is funded with current income on which taxes must be paid up front.
Psychologically, I suspect she may be more apt to stick with a pre-tax workplace plan (like a 403B) - and they're fine long-term investments. As I understand Roths, the after-tax contribution portion can be withdrawn at any time. There's a lot more hoops to jump through with the pre-tax contributions.
But I really like Roths. Tax free compounding and tax free withdrawals are hard to beat. Tough call. Just be sure that either way she socs the $$ away and leaves it alone during the working years. One caveat with Roths is that it's a pretty generous tax provision and so the law could potentially be altered in the future to where they'll find some way to tax them.
While there's good arguments on both sides, I'd think that in most cases over very long periods one comes out dollars ahead with the Roth. But it's not a slam-dunk. Too much depends on the tax bracket you're in when contributing and again when you're withdrawing.
One source which attempts to compare the benefits of Roths vs Traditional plans: http://www.401khelpcenter.com/401k/whitehouse_roth.html#.VyLHAtT3aK0

Recent discussions here brought up several reasons members decided to sell or hold FPACX. The large asset base of the MF and its big cash position seemed to push the sellers to their decision. I brought up the matter of Source Capital, the CEF now managed by Romick in concert with two members of the Crescent fund (the Contrarian Value team) and two FPA managers who run the FPA New Income Fund (FPNIX) according to a discipline known as AFI (Absolute Fixed Income). SOR after Romick, et al took over sold so much of the old manager's portfolio that a huge CG distribution was made in February. Now, my point: if an investor wants Romick without the huge asset base and the buckets of cash, SOR fits the bill. Right now, equity represents about 57% of assets, mostly US big caps, but some foreign as well. Cash and treasury notes make up about 11%, with the balance being managed by the AFI guys. AUM are now $337M. Romick's long-term record is exemplary, but the performance of the New Income Fund is really underwhelming. I don't know who has the final say on weighting of equity vs. fixed income. The CEF distributes about 4.5% (not guaranteed) and traded today at about a 5% discount. A long, Romicky discussion of SOR's statement of purpose can be found in the Annual Report (http://www.sourcecapitalinc.com/literature). Not a whole lot new from Romick, but it's as good a statement of what a new fund is supposed to accomplish as I ever see these days.

SAN FRANCISCO — Wall Street is running out of superlatives for Facebook....now 6th most valuable in S&P 500
"Ace Book." "Moving beyond the friend zone." "Liking the execution." Those were three of the research notes published by slack-jawed analysts following Wednesday's Street-beating quarterly results that solidified its position as one of the world's most powerful and top-performing technology companies.
Facebook far exceeded expectations for nearly every metric, even as other tech companies disappointed, sending shares soaring 11% to an all-time high of $120.79 and giving the company a $30 billion bump to its market cap.
Facebook is now the sixth most valuable company by market cap in the S&P 500, overtaking Johnson & Johnson.
Of the 49 analysts covering the stock, 45 rate it a "buy" or higher.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/04/28/facebook-6th-most-valuable-sp-500/83648484/
FB touches all-time high Range 116.96 - 120.79
52 week 72.00 - 120.79 Mkt cap 335.18B now 6th most valuable in S&P 500
117.54 +8.65 (7.94%)
Real-time: 2:45PM EDT 4/28/2016
Thanks @Ted
QQQ Top Holdings as of 04/27/2016 Top Holdings
Ticker
Company
% of Fund
AAPL Apple Inc 10.67
MSFT Microsoft Corp 7.93
AMZN Amazon.com Inc 5.62
FB Facebook Inc 4.92
GOOG Alphabet Inc 4.80
GOOGL Alphabet Inc 4.15
INTC Intel Corp 2.95
CMCSA Comcast Corp 2.93
CSCO Cisco Systems Inc 2.84
GILD Gilead Sciences Inc 2.71
https://www.invesco.com/portal/site/us/investors/etfs/product-detail?productId=QQQ&ticker=QQQ&title=powershares-qqq
Y T D @ 4/28 Close
APPL - 9.93 Carl Icahn revealed today that his firm has dumped all of its stake in Apple Inc. (AAPL). After having stabilized earlier today following Wednesday’s steep decline, the iPhone maker’s stock started diving again following Icahn’s comments
FB +11.53 sixth most valuable company by market cap in the S&P 500
QQQ -4.96 Over 10 % in AAPL
SPY +1.74
Top Holdings
As of 04/27/2016
NAME WEIGHT
Apple Inc. 2.96%
Microsoft Corporation 2.20%
Exxon Mobil Corporation 2.01%
Johnson & Johnson 1.70%
General Electric Company 1.58%
Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Class B
Facebook Inc. Class A 1.37%
AT&T Inc. 1.30% 63,586,050
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 1.29% 3
Wells Fargo & Company 1.29%

I'm a little late to this discussion, but here goes:
1. For domestic stocks, use a low-cost index fund/ETF as a core hold. Then, if you want to "explore", search for talented management (team) that runs a fairly concentrated portfolio for a reasonable cost. Another option would be to add a sector fund/ETF or something that does not mimic the index (maybe something like SPHD or something that emphasizes volatility or dividends, for example).
2. For international stocks, there is a lot more disparity, and indexing is not a clear winner, unless you don't want to take the time to research active funds. Fees may be a bit higher for actively-managed funds here, so pay attention to out-performance net of fees.
3. For bonds, understand that the past 10 years will not be repeated over the next 10 years. That being the case, fund expenses are even more critical.
4. If returns, in general, will be lower over the next few years (which some smart people believe), costs take on a bigger part of the screening process.
5. If you are buying actively-managed funds, remember the most important consideration is who runs the strategy and what their record is. You are not buying an index; you are hiring a manager. Do your homework, and do not skimp on this step.
6. In taxable accounts, remember the importance of tax efficiency. That means taxable distributions can sometimes be deadly. Use funds that tend to have these in your retirement accounts, where taxation is deferred.

@ Charles & MFO Members: IBD Slant
“There definitely has been, over the past 15 or so years, a big move away from load shares,” said Scott Cooley, director of policy research for Morningstar Inc. “Fifteen years ago, load funds were more than 40% of mutual fund assets. Now they’re down to 20%. The industry has been growing, but load funds have lost market share.”
Schwab insisted that the move is a response to dwindling interest by shareholders in paying loads, not a response to a recent Department of Labor (DOL) rule that tightens restrictions on advisor conflicts of interest and requires advisors to disclose how they’re paid.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/charles-schwabs-cutback-on-load-mutual-funds-reinforces-trend/

Facebook Will be Uplifting For These Tech E T F's
Facebook crushes expectations, stock soars
108.89 +0.13 (0.12%)
After Hours: 118.78 +9.89 (9.08%)52 week 72.00 - 117.59
Apr 27, 7:59PM EDT https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:FB&ei=6YQhV8HYIYO2mAGhhZ2IBA
Facebook reported its Q1 earnings on Wednesday afternoon, beating expectations on the top and bottom lines.
The stock surged nearly 9% after-hours.
Here are the most important numbers:
Earnings per share: $0.77 vs. $0.62 expected.
Revenue: $5.38 billion vs. $5.25 billion expected, and up 52% year-over-year. Ad revenue is up 57% year-over-year.
Monthly active users: 1.65 billion vs. 1.62 billion expected.
Daily active users: 1.09 billion on average for March 2016. This quarter, 66% of
Facebook's monthly active users (M A U) were daily active users, which is up from 65% during the same period last year.
http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-q1-2016-earnings-2016-4
E T F's with concentrated positions
Weighting
SOCL Social Media Index E T F Technology Equities 12.34%
FDN First Trust Dow Jones Internet Index Fund Technology Equities 10.33%
FPX First Trust US I P O Index Fund All Cap Equities 10.14%
PNQI PowerShares NASDAQ Internet Portfolio E T F Technology Equities 8.08%
IYW iShares U.S. Technology E T F Technology Equities 7.44%
WMW Morningstar Wide Moat Focus Total Return Index E T F All Cap Equities 6.79%
XLK Technology Select Sector SPDR Fund Technology Equities 6.16%
IGM iShares North American Tech ETF Technology Equities 6.11%
VGT Vanguard Information Technology ETF Technology Equities 6.00%
http://etfdb.com/stock/FB/
Several Fidelity Funds also own concentrated positions.
http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-concentrated.html?t=FB&region=usa&culture=en-US&ownerCountry=USA

@Hank- What an amazing coincidence... my very first car was a "previously owned" '56 Plymouth! My parents didn't have a car, so I had to learn to drive on my own. In 1959 the Coast Guard assigned me to a Loran Station on the lonely Northern CA coast and there was no Greyhound bus service. So I had to buy a car and learn to drive on the then very rugged coastal Hwy 1.
My learning experience ended the useful service life of most of the Plymouth's fenders. Fortunately, Yellow Cab had used a large fleet of these cars, and SF junkyards had a good supply of yellow fenders. After a couple of years that car was quite a sight... blue and black with three bright yellow fenders. It did have the advantage that other drivers give me a wide margin of clearance.
I shared your father's experience... on one trip up to the Loran station at Point Arena I was on a back road in the middle of nowhere when the engine lost oil pressure, with the usual ruinous results. Fortunately some kindly folks eventually came along and took me the remainder of the way to Point Arena, in their spiffy Nash sedan.

1956 Plymouth (Not Mine!)

Nice ride up to $45 from $26. I'm guessing $49-50 before it falls back to $40. Watching because would like to unload some PRNEX before it runs the other way.

Fiat Bianchina:
http://www.conceptcarz.com/images/Autobianchi/59-Autobianchi-500-DV-08_CbS_05.jpg
plus Channing funds (before Fidelity) and weak-company stocks, evidently.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000513010&play=1

@Hank- Your experiences and mine are almost identical with respect to when we started and how we started.
I absolutely agree with your comment "While I loath front-loads and the commission-based reps who peddle them, I benefitted greatly from his experience. In particular, I became more acclimated to taking a degree of risk in pursuit of a higher return than what I observe in many first-time investors who don't have the benefit of an advisor. So, the load may have been worth it."
Exactly.

@OJ - Thanks. Nice to know I'm in good company!
Of course in the early 70s mutual funds weren't as widely known or used as today. Unless raised in a family accustomed to investing, you likely benefitted from a bit of hand-holding as the "service" rendered by commission-based brokers was sometimes called.
Brings to mind a line from a story I read years ago: "Father was a man of substance, but the substance was seldom cash". Among the investments I recall my Dad making was a previously owned '56 Plymouth that rarely ran - which he traded in on a '59 Edsel. Need I say more? :)
Regards

FYI: As Puerto Rico lurches closer to default on its $72 billion in municipal debt, a few funds still have big chunks of the bonds in their portfolios.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160426/FREE/160429954?template=printart

I think Morningstar is pretty clear that star ratings are scorecards, while medals are buy recommendations. Neutral and negative seem to be hold and sell recommendations, respectively. So I wouldn't try to map star ratings into buy/sell/hold. An analyst (medal) rating can turn on a dime (e.g. if a manager leaves), while a star rating is unaffected by recent changes.
"[Star ratings are] strictly a historical, backward-looking measure of risk-adjusted performance. In contrast, the Morningstar Analyst Ratings are are a qualitative, analyst-driven rating based on what we feel investors could expect from a fund's performance going forward"
http://beta.morningstar.com/videos/591905/What-Are-Morningstar-Medalist-Funds.html
FWIW, I find the star ratings to be a good roll-up of past performance, while I view the analyst ratings as a beauty contest. M* has what seems to me a well earned reputation of doting too long on certain funds.
Regarding RPHYX, I think saying that it's been mischaracterized is a bit harsh. It is, if not a unique fund, a very unusual one with no (or few) good peers with which to compare. You can't rate a fund that's in a class by itself, so it winds up in a class with only distantly related funds.
Great Owls uses Morningstar categories, so it evidences some of the same category distortions. (I like comparing M* and Lipper scoring because Lipper tends to have more focused categories, though its downside is that this can result in small numbers of peer funds.)