FYI: Eaton Vance (EV) announced Friday that it would acquire Calvert Investment Management, the $12.3 billion Bethesda, Maryland, social investment manager, for an undisclosed sum.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161021/FREE/161029984?template=printart
Mutual Fund Wire Article:
http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=55022&wireid=2
M* Calvert Mutual Funds:
http://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundfamily/calvert-investments/0C00008PWF/fund-list.aspx

One of the links MJG provided (and on which Chuck Jaffe's article appears based) is to a Natixis publication clearly intended for financial advisors. It draws from findings included a survey of 2400 financial advisors worldwide. The survey was commissioned by Natixis and conducted during June and July 2015 by CoreData Research. Of the 2400 advisors queried, only 300 were from the U.S. Here's the link again: http://durableportfolios.com/docs/593/246/Global Financial Advisor Survey Whitepaper_2015 archived_final.pdf
Natixis did not conduct the underlying research, nor does the linked publication include the raw research findings. What you are seeing is a glitzy, possibly slanted, promotional piece designed to enhance Natixis's business and assist its network of commission-based advisors. It's therefore hard to evaluate, since it isn't directed at retail investors, but, rather, to the advisors who offer, promote or sell Natixis funds. https://ngam.natixis.com/us/by-price-and-performance
Jaffe appears to be in error in calling his source a "study" - as most would understand that term. Nor, I'll argue, should his source be termed a "survey", since Natixis did not conduct the survey. More appropriately, what one gets here is Natixis's interpretation of a survey conducted by someone else.
For purely illustrative purposes, here's some phrases contained in the the Natixis publication which do not comport with how a scientific study should/would have been written:
"... a perfect storm"
"... where the rubber meets the road"
"... plenty of fodder to fuel a heated debate"
I wouldn't drive across a bridge for which the engineering study of structural integrity contained such vernacular/vague terminology. :))
Natixis's "conclusions" are listed at the end of the publication. They might best be viewed as both guidance and suggested talking points for financial advisors.
--- Put risk first.
--- Maximize diversification.
--- Use alternatives.
--- Make smarter use of traditional investments.
--- Be consistent.
(I suspect MJG, and many others here, here would agree with some, but not all, of the above recommendations.)

>> Perhaps these documents might soften your strong opinion. I hope so. Neither Jaffe nor Natixis deserve your BS judgment. You may not believe the survey results, but they are the results.
MJG, I just know you are gonna say you read the durableportfolios link you provided, but ... did you read it?
The Jaffe link is a photo and bio fluff and whatnot, no merit to be inferred from it particularly, and his MW article is indeed at the level of his sometime bullshit (other of his work has substance, sure).
Was he referring to some other 'study'?
The pdf at the link you provided is even worse bullshit because full of rah-rah for advisers and tips and hints and other investor-meaningless text. Try doing a search for 8.5 or 5.9 within it. Maybe you meant to point to some Natixis study? Or some other study? If not, and you read it, suggest rereading.
I'd say OJ put it exactly.

"According to the Natixis study, investors currently expect returns of 8.5% on top of inflation."
Geez: What study was that? I missed it. None of my fund houses ever asks me that question. I wouldn't answer them if they did. The way I see it, it's their job to run the fund to the best of their ability according to the mandate given them in the Prospectus. I'll live with the results.
A word on Natixis. They are a French investment company and owner of several global fund groups, including U.S. based Harris Associates which operates the Oakmark Funds. I suspect (but can't confirm) that their study covered investors in many different global markets - some with much faster growing economies and a correspondingly less experienced retail investor class than the U.S.
---
"Pat Dwyer of Merrill Lynch says the firm thinks we are still in the early stages of a secular bull market. Healthcare stocks will do particularly well, he predicts."
This is from the same article, but seems to contradict the author's broader argument.
---
"Investors are optimistic about returns; they have high hopes for what they can achieve,” said David Goodsell, executive director of the Durable Portfolio Construction Research Center at Natixis Global Asset Management."
Hope is not a plan. (I guess this supports what the author is trying to establish.)
---
"This level of expectation is a recipe for disappointment, even if the market winds up with gains. It’s a reason to be dissatisfied with an adviser, even if he or she delivers the 6% return that person thinks is realistic."
Seems to me this type of thinking puts the cart before the horse. I'm inclined to decide first on a prudent allocation to various assets, based on age, time frame, risk tolerance and the purpose for which the money is invested. Once so allocated, I'll take whatever return the market provides. Nobody can predict markets. However, if folks are expecting 5-6% above inflation year after year - I'd say they'd need to be pretty far out on the risk spectrum to achieve that consistently. Not impossible to achieve - but not an easy goal either.

Hi Old Joe,
We seem to be in complete agreement that both investors and their financial advisors are likely overly optimistic with respect to portfolio returns in the next decade. According to the surveys, financial advisors attempt to dampen the enthusiasm of their clients. That's probably a good policy. Realism is always superior to wishful optimism.
We part ways when assessing the worthiness of the Jaffe article that was referenced. It is not BS. To summarily discredit the article as BS does a disservice to Chuck Jaffe, to the company who conducted the surveys, and to the MFO membership.
Jaffe has been a respected and widely recognized financial writer for decades. He would never risk compromising his reputation by inventing statistics or referencing a faulty survey. He did not do so in the current article.
Jaffe relied on statistical data collected by an outfit (Natixis) that frequently does worldwide financial surveys. Typically their surveys question over 7000 individual investors and/or over 2000 financial advisors. These surveys are conducted in double digit countries.
You might not trust surveys. That is your choice. But the surveys seem to be very well designed and honestly conducted.. Before assigning the BS perjorative to Jaffe and the Natixis Global Asset Management firm, I suggest you visit the two Links that are now provided:
http://www.aaii.com/authors/chuck-jaffe
http://durableportfolios.com/docs/593/246/Global Financial Advisor Survey Whitepaper_2015 archived_final.pdf
Perhaps these documents might soften your strong opinion. I hope so. Neither Jaffe nor Natixis deserve your BS judgment. You may not believe the survey results, but they are the results.
Best Wishes.

Who exactly are these "investors" who expect inflation + 8.5%? None around here, for sure. Sounds like more typical BS from Jaffe.
Who exactly are these "advisors" who expect inflation +"5.9%"? I just love pseudo-exact numbers like that in a context like this one. Not roughly 5.5%, not roughly 6%, but exactly 5.9%. Sorry MJG- just more BS.
Every responsible advisor that I've noticed in the last couple of years is using 4%, and that with some caution.

Hi Guys,
Not only are investors far too optimistic of the level of near term return likelihoods, but their financial advisors are too optimistic also. It is not likely that the average portfolio will deliver the 5.9% returns over inflation that the professional advisors are currently projecting.
Given our low GDP growth rate of about 1%, the odds are against the good times that our advisor class is forecasting. The current GDP and irs coupled productivity growth rates are more than two times below our historical average. The other contributor to annual returns, the market's P/E ratio level, is far above its historical average, so the most probable direction for that contributor is downward, a regression-to-it's-mean movement which will subtract from returns.
Both these returns factors suggest muted near term equity returns, not necessarily negative, but perhaps a factor of two below the historical returns. This forecasting method, which has long been advocated by John Bogle, is not highly accurate for any given year, but it does a very respectable forecasting job over a timeframe like a decade.
According to that returns equation, expect muted equity returns, even below those endorsed by the reported financial advisor wizards. Retirement dates might need to be delayed for those assuming near historical equity market returns. That's not a high probability future. Sorry about that, but that's the way the cards are likely (never a guaranteed outcome) to play out in the next decade.
Best Wishes.

FYI: Investors expect annual gains of 8.5% above inflation, and advisers say that’s far too high.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/you-are-probably-way-too-optimistic-about-your-investment-returns-2016-10-20/print
Chuck Jaffe's Money Life Show: Guest: David Goodsell: (Scroll & Click On Download)
http://moneylifeshow.com/highlights.asp

Being mostly on auto-pilot, I haven't paid a lot of attention to trends this year. But Yikes. Fixed Income investments and dividend paying stocks do look hot.
My single largest holding, T. Rowe Price's Spectrum Income (RPSIX), has gained over 9% YTD.
Price's (now closed) High Yield Bond (PRHYX) has done even better, up 13% YTD.
Meanwhile, their highly respected (also closed) Capital Appreciation fund (PRWCX) lags both, having gained only 6.83% YTD.
VFINX (I track it to get a sense of how the Index 500 is doing) is ahead a relatively modest 6.64% YTD.
(Thanks to Junkster for getting the thread back on track)

@Junkster Loans?
Many HY funds continue touching Ytd and multi-year highs.Here's Sept 30th commentary from two such funds.
ARTFX +13.28 Ytd
Total Assets
$ 1.8 bil
Portfolio Composition (% of total portfolio)
TOTAL 100.0%
Cash and Equivalents 5.8
Bank Loans 21.6
Corporate Bonds 72.6
Since February 2016, there has been a substantial rally in the non-investment grade credit space,particularly in the beleaguered energy and metals/mining sectors. As a result, today there is no obvious area of significant value as almost everything is trading rich. However, we believe there are pockets of dislocation in the market in a variety of sectors, including energy and the lower-rated portion of the universe that continue to offer opportunity that is idiosyncratic and credit specific. We hold that this requires considerable caution and a focus on the underlyin business quality of each respective business. In addition, with the potential for rising interest rates, we believe the ability to flex into loans and away from bonds will act as a helpful risk mitigant.
https://www.artisanpartners.com/content/dam/documents/monthly-commentary/vr/2016/sep/ARTFX-APDFX-MCommentary-0916-vR.pdf
HYOAX +14.19 Ytd
Total Assets
$ 45.5 mil
Increase in LIBOR rates has created strong technical demand for loans ...over 50% of leveraged loans now trading above par
Low worldwide G bond yields will continue ..demand for HY and levered loans..
https://az768132.vo.msecnd.net/documents/22438_2016_10_18_08_51_54_627.gzip.pdf
RPHYX
And more on LIBOR from RiverPark/David Sherman and the Cohanzick Team
LIBOR has risen to 0.85% at the end of 3Q16,a level near, or in some cases above, the LIBOR floor for many loans. At the same time, credit spreads for high yield bonds have narrowed since their 1Q16 peak such that we are now seeing a convergence of yields between leveraged loans and high yield bonds ...
The increase in loans in our portfolio may temper market volatility and provide modest price appreciation if some potential technical changes play out.
We are neither bulls nor bears. That being said, we have decidedly become defensive in our portfolios. We are “not in Kansas anymore”. The confluence of mixed signals and everincreasing exogenous risk leads us to be cautious. We are optimistic about the quality and return of our portfolios consistent with the funds’ mandates. Further, we remain nimble to take advantage of the unintended consequences resulting from government action.
http://www.riverparkfunds.com/downloads/8340_RiverPark-Cohanzick 3Q16 Shareholder Letter.pdf

For "popular" read "big". 105 of the biggest. Why 105, not 100 or 150? Or even 106?

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1376720/000139834416019748/fp0022085_497.htm
497 1 fp0022085_497.htm
STEWART CAPITAL MID CAP FUND
(a series of Stewart Capital Mutual Funds)
Supplement dated October 19, 2016 to
the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated May 1, 2016
This Supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectus and SAI and should be read in conjunction with the Prospectus and SAI. This Supplement supersedes any information to the contrary in the Prospectus, SAI, and the Supplement filed September 27, 2016.
The Board of Trustees of Stewart Capital Mutual Funds has concluded that it is in the best interests of Stewart Capital Mid Cap Fund (the “Fund”) and the Fund’s shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on or before November 18, 2016 (the “Redemption Date”).
On September 27, 2016, the Fund stopped accepting new investments and stopped pursuing its stated investment objective. The Fund will liquidate its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. Any required distributions of income and capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash. Shares of the Fund are otherwise not available for purchase.
Prior to or on the Redemption Date, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Fund Shares” section in the Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, a redemption is subject to tax on any taxable gains. Please refer to the “Dividends, Distributions and Taxes” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO THE REDEMPTION DATE WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THE REDEMPTION DATE AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund at (877) 420-4440.
This Supplement and the existing Prospectus dated May 1, 2016, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated May 1, 2016, have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by visiting www.stewartcap.com or calling the Fund at (877) 420-4440.

I agree with Barry, "Stick With ‘Ugly Ducklings". Although not Barry's choice duckling, I bought some WFC today at 45.36. The worst is over.

Hi @hank and @Derf,
Thanks for making comment on the number 47 as indeed as it turns out to be a most interesting number and when divided into 100 provides the quotient of 2.12765.
The number 47 is said to be contained in Biblical Law.
Something to think on? Yes.
Have a great day!
Skeet

FYI: These mutual funds have the most assets under management in 401(k) plans, according to BrightScope.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T047-C009-S003-105-most-popular-funds-for-your-retirement-savings.html

"...we asked five leading investors to share their best ideas on where to invest $10,000 right now. (It makes sense for smaller sums, too.) We first quizzed them back in June, when we also asked exchange-traded-fund analyst Eric Balchunas of Bloomberg Intelligence to choose ETFs that came closest to the strategies and themes they highlighted. Some of the experts also run mutual funds that employ their strategies.
Among their summer favorites were out-of-favor emerging markets, and many ETFs tracking those markets have seen double-digit gains. How did our panel of experts do last quarter, exactly? Very well, thank you. Check out the results that follow each new entry below. For comparison, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index was up 3.3 percent from June 30 to Sept. 30."
how-to-invest-10k
Experts and Tickers mentioned in Article:
Barry Ritholtz:
-DFCEX - IEMG or EEMV
-VEMAX - VWO
Sarah Ketterer
-CIVIX - TDIV or DXJ
Mark Mobius:
-MCHI, EWZ
Rob Arnott:
-PXH, VGK, BKLN, EMLC, FEM or FNDE
Francis Kinniry:
-Use this $10K to re-balance your losers (re-balance your portfolio).
-Consider replacing high costs funds with low cost etfs to lowering investment fee costs.
-AOR

My comment has to do more with accommdating the retail investor more than big money investors and with this I'm thinking that the long term retail investor should be able to withdraw money from most any fund, at their will, without penalty once a holding period has been satisfied. The issue as I see it is big money moving in and out of funds so to speak with their "hot money." Perhaps, a lock up period is warranted for new money coming into funds and once the lock up period has been satisfied then withdrawals can be taken at the retail investor's will while big money would have to give sufficient notice before making large withdrawals and perhaps get paid with securities rather than cash. In this way, fund managers do not get blindsided with large redemptions without fair notice.
One of the reasons that I own the number of mutual funds within my portfolio that I do (currently forty seven) is the it much easier to get $5,000 to $25,000 perhaps even $50,000 out in cash than it is to get half a million out and possibly get paid inkind with securities. I believe, payment inkind has happen to a few that post on the board from time-to-time. So for those that have large sums invested in only a few funds might begin to ponder a good withdrawl strategy or begin to think about spreading it around among a number of funds.

Hi Hank, Hi msf,
Thanks for your comments, especially those most recently made.
The active vs. passive management debate will remain a hot topic. While the overwhelming academic research concludes that passive is the winner on average and in the long haul, limited evidence suggests that active management can deliver superior returns and/or reduced risk over some periods. The secret sauce is to discover the right manager for the right timeframe.
That's not an easy task; what worked in the past need not work in the future. Fund manager Bill Miller is a great example. He outperformed his benchmark for 15 consecutive years and just a few years later scored in the bottom 1% of all active managers. Things change.
A successful active manager wins over some timeframe using a specific methodology that reflects his knowledge and his biases. Once again things like macroeconomic conditions change and the active manager is not flexible enough to either recognize the changes or to adjust his methods. That was Bill Miller.
If you favor active fund management, you must actively evaluate active managers. That's tough work, but necessary to capture the small percentage of fund managers who do beat their benchmarks. It's a changing group since persistence is not one of their basic characteristics.
Benchmarks are needed to challenge and test the quality of active fund management. For lhose funds that specialize in large companies, the S&P 500 Index seems to provide a respectable, albeit an imperfect measure.
I did know that a committee controlled the firms represented by the Index, and that a few changes were made annually based on rules and judgments. I am not aware of the weightings given to the formulaic portion of the decision process and the heuristic portion.
I am not adverse to having a human heuristic segment. For something as uncertain as company assessment and the stock markets, equations alone will never be perfect. But too much emotional heuristics can ruin a useful market tool. The balance is a difficult target, but the S&P 500 committee seems to have done an acceptable job. By rule, they must maintain a proper weighting in the 11 major sector categories. Nothing is ever perfect in the marketplace; a satisficing strategy must do.
Best Wishes.

This is a bit of a sidetrack, but is spurred by jstr's use of S&P as a prototypical index provider.
S&P's "indexes" do not have "systematic selection criteria", at least the way I would use that phrase: "entirely rules-based and containing no judgment".
See, e.g. "What Is an Index" http://alo.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/index_5.pdf
Unlike other index providers such as Russell, Wilshire, etc., Standard and Poor's has a human index committee that applies judgment in selecting securities for index inclusion. Notable is its criterion for removal: "lack of representation". This potential for subjective tinkering was out in full force at the peak of the dot com bubble:

The S&P 500 is often mischaracterized as a passively managed index of large stocks, but in 2000, its managers became seriously aggressive -- adding (and subtracting) four new stocks each month, on average. In the process, the index was systematically stripped of small and mid-sized value stocks from Jan. 28 to Dec. 11 in favor of large-cap growth stocks -- largely from the technology sector, and at exactly the wrong moment.

https://www.thestreet.com/story/1305526/1/make-a-bundle-on-the-sps-rejects.html
More recently, S&P made rule changes not to improve how well its index represented the market or the index's investability, but to improve S&P's bottom line:

In 2008 and 2009, S&P . . . tossed nine companies off the 500 for inverting. But four years ago [June 2010], S&P changed course, for business reasons. Companies were angry at being excluded, and index investors wanted to own some of the excluded companies. Moreover, S&P feared that a competitor would set up a more inclusive, rival index.

http://fortune.com/2015/11/23/pfizer-dow-jones/
Systematic selection criteria? Yeah, right.