I'm holding out for them to roll out the F-8-E class shares. You know, the ones that have no load, no 12(b)-1, cost under .10 ER, and give you 5 extra shares each month as a shareholder bonus. :)

@Sven, yes indeed, most of our nut is there. And now that I have bailed from the Yackts and Parnassus, even more.
I have never owned CAPE on its own. I just track it irregularly, and am always (a little, but decreasingly) surprised to see it outperform all the other ones I like, or used to --- the half-dozen smart secret-sauce LC div / value etfs, e.g. And now SPLV.
@BobC, was not comparing with their benchmarks. SPHD has been superb at shorter times and also overall; I wish I had been in it.
As for ups / downs, just go to M* 10k-growth graphs (put in an mfund to start, like TWEIX or some Vanguard or some other that you favor), and then select time windows of, say, dips that made you jump. Myself, I do not see enough smoothing to matter with SPLV vs CAPE (which for some reason M* refuses to show today, hmm).
But notes from yesterday: over the pothole starting ~9/18/14, SPLV was notably better. The one starting ~8/13/15, pretty much equivalent. And the one starting before last xmas, meh, with SPLV slightly better.
So given the greater bucks I wind up with from holding CAPE, I would take it over SPLV if I had to choose b/w them only. That's all. I learned long ago (partly anyway, he claimed) not to sweat market potholes, or at least to ride them out and not flinch, or not do anything much more than flinch.

In response to BobC's above question.
Below is my best guess, thoughts and comments.
Not speaking for American Funds but from the perspective of one of their mutual fund investors I am thinking it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to move to only a one share class fund firm due to, the no doubt, many revenue sharing agreements they have in place with the many other financial firms they have developed relationships with through the years. Thus the large number of fund share classes necessary to serve this large and broad base of investors that they now serve through many venues.
I am an A fund share holder that paid a one time front load commission (through the years) and, with this, I received nva exchange prividledges among their A share funds without having to pay another sales charge. These sales charges, from my memory, ranged form 3.5% to 5.75% depending on the fund I was buying without applying other discounts. I'm thinking the brokerage wrap accounts that many firms have moved to that have on going fees associated with these type accounts and that I have the better deal. I have seen annual wrap fee schedules of better than 1.5% for some wrap accounts with most being around the 1.0% range and a few back of that.
I have owned some American Funds for better than thiry years with some funds that I now own were owned for years by my parents before being passed to me through gift and inheritance transfers. When you consider the number of years these funds have been owned the sales load spread over the years owned is very small. Now an on going annual account wrap and/or advisor retainer fee paid over these same years would be very, very large.
I'm thinking long term investors need to determine which route will be the best for them while I can undestand some short term investors might find more favor in the wrap fee account who wish to move in and out of their positions and trade a lot. There are some restrictions on how many nav transfers I can make over a given time span. These restrictions are designed to prevent a lot of in and out trading but do allow for repositioning my portfolio from time-to-time.
Also, know American Funds is not the only family of funds that I am invested with as they are mostly a large cap value shop. Some of the other fund families are Alger, Alps, Blackrock, Columbia, Delaware, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, First Investors, Franklin, Guggenheim, Invesco, Hotchkis & Wiley, J P Morgan, Loomis Sayles, Lord Abbett, Neuberger & Berman, Principal, Prudential, Sun America, Thornburg, Virtus and perhaps a few others that I missed. All of these fund families allow for nav exchanges within their family of funds so my cost to move around within their family of funds and reposition my portfolio from time-to-time is at no cost to me.
From my thinking there are no ongoing annual wrap account fees and/or advisor sales commissions, for me, as my sales charges have already been paid except for the small 12b-1 fee that applies on some of the funds I own.
Yep, I'm thining I've got the better deal over wrap fee based accounts and fee based advisors who charge annual retainer fees.
Old_Skeet

FYI: Taking measured risks is a must for investors in this divergent asset class.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=775012

FYI: The allure of tax-free growth has made the Roth individual retirement account an increasingly popular investment vehicle to leave to children or other loved ones. But heirs won’t reap the full benefit of a Roth if it isn’t passed down correctly.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.wsj.com/articles/be-careful-when-passing-down-a-roth-ira-1477275060

Okay, so can we see something about the volatility of your 50/50 mix? I mean that's what it is about right? Otherwise we can also say some other global mutual fund performed better and THAT does not mean anything one way or the other, also.
If VMVFX did what it said it will do, then it has fulfilled its mandate. Minimum volatility vs Low Volatility as someone from Vanguard explained recently.

I did a quick comparison of the performance of VMVFX against a portfolio of 50% VTI/50% VXUS. Over the lifetime of VMVFX, it did much better. Over the past year, the performance was about equal. Of course, no conclusions to be drawn here, but I'm wondering if this is just another illustration of reversion to the mean.

But remember that most public employees also have a pretty generous pension plan that is far better than Social Security. Why else would the politicians not be a part of SS? Our experience has been that public employees who also have contributed to 403b (yes, most have hideous fee structures) plans are often in financially strong shape at retirement. Most mutual fund companies opted out of 403b plans years ago, so that left only those funds run by insurance companies as options for many plan participants. Interesting that a number of quality fund companies (T.R. Price, for example) remained in the 457 business, which is a plus for those folks who qualify.

Davidmoran, could you provide more information on the "subpar performance" of the low-vol funds? I am not challenging your comment, but the ones we follow, specifically SPHD and SPLV, have out-performed their benchmarks rather nicely. Although SPLV is a bit under the S&P 500 YTD, it has done better over 2 & 3 years. Over five it is a bit lower, but it has done so with much less volatility. SPHD has run rings around the index. Understand that I do not expect it to continue its blazing path, as it has shown signs of weakening the last 1-3 months. But it is hard to argue with its overall performance. The same could be said for XMLV versus MDY. Some have suggested this is a fad. Perhaps. But so far, at least, when the index swoons, these have held up pretty well.

@TheShadow
Bumping this topic.
Keep up the great work.Thanks Shadow,et al.
Scout Funds
Based on information as of September 30, 2016, the Scout Funds listed are projected to make capital gain distributions as
indicated below. The equity funds will provide estimated income distributions in December and the fixed income funds will
continue their normal monthly income distribution schedule.
Record Date*: 12/15/2016; Ex/Pay Date: 12/16/2016
http://scoutinv.com/resources/documents/DistributionsMemo/2016 Distribution Estimates Memo 10-14-16.pdf?c=1477275470362

these stocks were also growing more expensive relative to how much profit they produce, an important measure of valuation.

Valuation is getting ahead of these stock. VMVFX is a global fund with ~50% oversea and currency hedging.

Most likely other members own less discussed and know funds, like GIBIX or GIBLX, retail version. Perhaps because the retail version has only been around one year it does not make most cuts when members are looking for established bond funds. I bought DBLTX as many did in 2015, but have not liked its extremely high concentration in securitized bonds. I traded it for GIBIX a year ago ( I have a ML account) and then bought its retail version for my ira at Fidelity. Solid returns, better downside capture than its index, Great Owl Fund, 5* at Morningstar and in top 10% of category since inception in 2012. Any others have undermentioned funds they like?

The history is generally accurate, except for minor details. 403(b)s began in 1958, as noted in the accompanying NYTimes article (link is at end of article, or here).
It's true that Section 401(k) of the IRC wasn't enacted until 1978 (and didn't become effective until 1980), but 401(k)s are just "Cash Or Deferred Arrangement" (CODA) plans. According to ICI, these go back to the 1950s (with IRS rulings in 1956 to regulate them). The profit sharing (employer contribution) portion of these plans goes all the way back to the beginning of the modern income tax (1913), i.e. not counting the income tax that Lincoln instituted.
Similarly, there were annuity plans for educators predating Section 403(b) of the IRC, going all the way back to the founding of the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (TIAA) in 1918.
The NYTimes article cited above confirms that mutual funds were added to 403(b)s in 1974. But that's for "real" 1940 Act mutual funds. Remembering that 403(b)s were created as annuities, we can also consider variable annuities (i.e. similar to mutual funds, but contained inside annuity wrappers). The first variable annuity was the College Retirement Equities Fund (CREF), created in 1952.
IMHO, if one wants to talk about the full history, one goes all the way back to the 1910s. If one wants to talk about the modern regulatory era, one starts in 1974 with ERISA.

The marketing staffer who thought up the moniker "Low Volatility" for the fund description most likely got a nice bonus check though.

Probably yeah. And I'm sure many flocked to it (and other similarly-named funds) because it had those words in the title. Me? I saw an eclectic world stock fund that skewed mid-cap, with a near 50-50 split US/international. The fund name had no influence on my going into it soonafter it opened.

Certainly, a good step. But the management of Capital Group/American Funds, are, obsessed with "segmentation". A recent visit to their site indicated the following fund classes already extant:
A
B
C
F-1
F-2
529-A
529-B
529-C
529-E
529-F-1
R1
R2
R2-E
R3
R4
R5
R5-E
R6
Their canned solution to any new development seems to be "a new share class should fix THAT". The infrastructure to develop &market these ever-expanding class structures isn't free.
Similarly, their solution to "better management" seems to require shareholders to pay for a half dozen, or more, managers, when other equally good funds "make do" with one or 2.
Sure seems like Vanguard and Blackrock understand the value of 'simplicity'.

Yes, it's a load fund, but it's available load-waived lots of places.
Better yet, it looks like one can buy the Advisor share class ANAYX at Scottrade, albeit with a transaction fee. That's $17 per purchase (or $2/purchase on an automatic investment plan).
This saves you 0.30%/year in fund costs (0.60% ER vs. 0.90% ER). On a $5K investment, you'll recover the transaction fee in under a year.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Nevada goes passive to beat peers; BLT or tuna.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=What+Does+Nevada’s+$35+Billion+Fund+Manager+Do+All+Day?+Nothing

From the looks of it, Jaffe was just reading a line off the Natixis PR, which is a summary of what Hank observed was not a rigorous study.
Hank also caught onto the fact that both the survey Jaffe was referencing and the earlier survey that MJG linked to had polled advisors, not investors. However, upon reading the PR, one discovers that the investor expectations figure reported (8.5% above inflation) did not even come from that recent advisor survey data but from an older data set. So Jaffe was sloppy in his reading or his reporting in saying that a recent study reported this. (The info was in the PR for the survey, but not from the survey itself.)
Here are the PR pages for the current reports :
Natixis 2016 Individual Investor Survey (data collected Feb/Mar 2016, report May 24, 2016. full paper here)
Natixis 2016 Financial Advisor Survey (US data collected July 2016; PR dated September 28, 2016.)

FYI: Whoa, give us back our money. We wanted something boring.
That's what a growing number of investors are saying after joining the wave earlier this year into so-called "low-volatility" funds. These types of funds try to offer nervous investors a smoother ride, by buying stocks with a history of milder price swings than the rest of the market. Think power utilities, phone companies and other traditionally staid industries.
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/43d60efdfb2f495c94cc34c1ade88f3c/not-boring-enough-investors-leave-low-volatility-funds

@MJG
1. Here is the Natixis link from Ted's May 2014 post to which you refer. https://ngam.natixis.com/docs/352/754/562014_FINAL_Individual Investor Survey Full Report _4292014.pdf Unfortunately, it no longer functions. If you can provide a working link to the document on which I commented in that 2014 thread I'll be happy to take another look at it.
2. In reading my comments of May 2014 I can't see where anything in them contradicts what I've written here. The issue I addressed back than appears to have been an entirely different one.
3. As you note, I've commented more than once. My initial reaction was based on reading Jaffe's article which Ted linked. From that it appeared a study by Natixis had been conducted for the benefit of (and and directed towards) retail investors. I reacted to Jaffe's assertions from the standpoint of an individual investor. Later, after looking at the document you linked (which Jaffe cites) I addressed the document itself trying to better understand its origin, purpose, methodology and why some had found it troubling. I'm afraid Mr. Jaffe did not do a very good job relating some pertinent details to his readers.
Heated? Not me. If anyone else has been heated, I'm confident you'll deal with them in an appropriate manner.
I strongly agree that birthdays beginning with 7 or higher need to be vigorously celebrated.
Regards