Liz Ann Sonders is way past the "glass ceiling." Teresa Kong, MAINX. But she's got males working with her. She's the "lead," though. And I own PRASX: Ahn Lu. YTD, even after the last couple of crazy days, PRASX is up, barely: +0.55%.
LU: https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/hEqpm7iwGeZns5hULyAv4w--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9MTIwO3E9OTU7dz0xMjA-/http://cdn.citywirecontent.co.uk/managerimages/120x120/14710--1x1--120x120.jpg
SONDERS: https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/qFmcrDdMgu9G.A1_BclDCw--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9MzYwO3E9OTU7dz02NDA-/http://thumbnails.cbsig.net/CBS_Production_News_VMS/2014/03/08/187103299716/SATMO_030814_Jobs_640x360.jpg
KONG: https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/6GElZFdKG6Vosslx5vnNxQ--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9MTAwO3E9OTU7dz0xMDA-/http://m.c.lnkd.licdn.com/mpr/pub/image-reB9nm4UbLioAlOA46ekDU_adamk-Kt2feeP7R68dGlfz1elreBP7rAUd-0R-i7Eldtn/teresa-kong.jpg
Susan Byrne: "graduated" from running funds to "Founder & Vice Chairman."
http://westwoodgroup.com/people/susan-m-byrne/

Dex said, "That is why I advise people to buy lottery tickets for their retirement - they have a 50/50 chance - either they win or they lose."
First, I'd never try to characterize anything Bob C says - because no one else can say it so well.
But Dex, You can't be serious! 50/50 chance of winning the lottery?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/10/your-money/win-a-lottery-jackpot-not-much-chance-of-that.html?_r=0
"The odds of winning (the lottery) remain infinitesimal: Powerball players, for instance, have a 1 in 175 million chance of winning. You have roughly the same chance of getting hit by lightning on your birthday."

Hi Dex,
Your interpretation of BobC’s 50/50 market odds is very naïve. Formally, your reading might be called a Probit (PROBibility unIT) statistical measure. That form of measurement reduces the stats to an overly simplistic either/or positive/negative final judgment. Based on your post, you are satisfied with an equally weighted outcomes probability. The historical data does not support that weighting.
Either/or results need not be equally weighted. When a baseball hitter makes an official plate appearance, he can register either a hit or make an out. Extending your assessment, he has a 50/50 likelihood of either outcome, batting averages notwithstanding. You will surely go bankrupt if you accept the hit side of that wager.
Allow me to recite another extreme example of the problems assigning an equal probability to a bifurcation event for the mistaken reason that there are merely two possible happenings. Weather serves as a terrific illustration.
In my part of the Southern California landscape, any weather forecaster would lose his license to practice if he assigned a 50/50 odds for rain or clear on any given day. The proper odds likely hover at the 2/98 level against rain. Bifurcation does not typically translate into equally probable events.
From a Franklin Templeton market summary, over the past 88 years, the S&P 500 recorded 64 Up and 24 Down years. That is a 73% likelihood of a positive annual return. For the 64 positive return years, the annual average return was slightly North of 22%. For the 24 negative return years, the annual average loss was just South of -13% . So, not only do the odds favor a positive annual year, the returns for the positive years swamp the less likely negative years. That’s a double positive.
These favorable equity return stats are the basis for investing in stocks. The historical data shows that fixed income investments (like Bonds) have a higher likelihood of a positive annual return than stocks, but the payoffs are more muted. That’s why most portfolios that seek growth emphasize its stock components.
I’m sure you are familiar with these commonplace statistics. Given that familiarity, I’m puzzled by your submittal. You are just plain wrongheaded if you really believe that, without further mitigating circumstances, the odds are 50/50 that equities will deliver a positive or a negative reward/penalty in any given year.
Of course you’re free to assign whatever probabilities you like to the markets, but that’s being more than naïve; that’s completely ignoring the available database at your investment peril.
Good luck, and you will certainly need all of it if that’s your understanding and use of market statistics. I hope you were just joking or that I misread your post.
Best Wishes.

FYI: S&P 500 futures were higher prior to the open this morning, but things quickly turned south once the market opened for trading. At its lows this morning, the S&P 500 was down 1.2%. But afternoon trading brought an upside reversal, and by the end of the day, the index closed higher by 0.61%.
So what might today’s upside reversal mean for trading in the coming days? Does the positive momentum seen into the close today continue into the days ahead?
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/upsidereversal/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/imf-cuts-u-s-2015-economic-growth-forecast-to-2-5-1433424601
IMF Urges Fed to Wait on Interest Rates Until 2016
IMF cuts U.S. 2015 economic growth forecast to 2.5%
=====
The economic recovery has been tepid. Maybe not a bear market but a trading range. We've been trained to expect a sharp decline. Maybe it will be a slow grind.
There is always a large terrorist attack - all bets off if that happens.

Does it really matter? I look at it this way: every year the odds are 50-50 the markets will go up and 50-50 they will go down.

Very true. That is why I advise people to buy lottery tickets for their retirement - they have a 50/50 chance - either they win or they lose.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-07/the-hugely-profitable-wholly-legal-way-to-game-the-stock-market
Wall Street hedge funds and trading desks can take advantage of index funds by taking positions before particular stocks are added/removed from various indexes....
This is news.... to whom?
Slow news/post July 4th trading week?
How about "Weak indiscriminate reporting ... Wholly legal way to generate millions of spurious web clicks." ??

QLAC Primer:
understanding-and-implementing-qlacs-in-a-retirement
@Junkster...The author suggests:
You could divide the $125,000 limit into three policies, enabling withdrawals at ages 75, 80 and 85, respectively. It wouldn't provide as large a distribution as if it all came at age 85, but this staggered approach provides flexibility and hedges against life's "what ifs."
and,
Similarly, you could craft a staggered, multi-QLAC arrangement, each with different benefits and payout timing. One could have a COLA, another a cash refund and a third could forgo the cash refund. This would provide varying income streams at different stages of retirement.

>>>This thread gets me back to a theme I've been posting on (some might say excessively) lately - guaranteed income streams. Whether from immediate annuities, SS, or longevity insurance, they do help to relieve concern about needing to save (hoard?) for lifelong needs. 'Nuff said.<<<<
I have 100% decided that when I turn 70 that I will purchase the newly approved QLAC (Qualified Longevity Annuity Contract) You can deduct up to $125,000 of your IRA to purchase such and they are *exempt* when figuring your RMD. I will take one that begins paying out at 80 and will get a bare bones version that has no death benefit etc. Presently only two or three insurance companies offer QLACs. More will join the bandwagon in the future. I will only deal with New York Life and they are expected to join the QLAC fray within the next year.

A few more details about medical expenses and taxes (to throw into your personal tax mix):

Also, if you have self employment income equal to or greater than your medical insurance premiums you can reduce self employment income dollar for dollar up to what was spent on medical insurance premium. This is an AGI, not an itemized deduction, so it's not necessary to itemize to take this deduction.
from link:
" If you are self-employed, you can also deduct the cost of your health insurance premiums regardless of how they compare to your adjusted gross income. Deduct the total amount of health insurance premiums paid for the previous year on line 29 of Form 1040. Fill out the "Self-Employed Health Insurance Deduction Worksheet" in the instructions for Form 1040 to calculate your deduction amount."
deduct-medical-expenses-adjusted-gross-income-15960.html

A few more details about medical expenses and taxes (to throw into your personal tax mix):
- The tax laws were changed so that medical expenses are deductible only to the extent that they exceed 10% (formerly 7.5%) of your AGI (Form 1040, line 37). That's net expenses, after ACA subsidies.
- There's a two year exception for people over age 65 (lasting through tax year 2016); for these folks, the floor remains at 7.5%.
- If you use a special tax account (e.g. HSA) to pay for some medical expenses, then you can't use those particular expenses in calculating your medical deduction.
- Insurance premiums (other than Medicare, COBRA, and LTC) can not be paid out of an HSA (so the only place they can be used is in calculating medical itemized deductions).
- A person under age 65 may not pay for their spouse's Medicare premiums out of their own HSA. (You must be over 65 to pay for Medicare premiums from your HSA.)

Hi BobC,
I completely agree with your retirement planning that includes not going to a fully cash portfolio and keeping a 3 to 5 year cash equivalent reserve.
However, without more definitive projections, I start each year assuming the odds of a positive/negative equity return is 70/30 and not 50/50. That assumption is simplistically based on the historical statistical data set. Simple is superior to complex in many, but not all, instances.
Please note the distinction between a probability and a statistical prediction. Both are attempts at estimating the likelihood of a future event, but the approaches differ. A probability projection is based on some mathematical model that is guided by weighting various input parameters. A statistical projection is based entirely on past performance records.
In the investment universe, models are in constant flux since the input parameters are uncertain and include both appropriate components and those that introduce errors. Therefore, I prefer the simple statistical approach.
Guys, the Societe Generale’s Bear market odds projection is only at the 25% level. That is far from a Bear market certainty.
First, it is premature to pronoun the prediction wrong. More test time is required. Second, even if it is proven that a Bear market is not happening, Societe Generale could reasonably claim a successful prediction since they are simultaneously forecasting a 75% likelihood that the Bull market will continue its run.
When making a prediction and incorporating specific odds percentages, forecasters are wisely protecting themselves. In a sense, it is a win-win situation for them.
When making any decision, especially an investment commitment, it is always a good policy to know the odds and the likely payoff boundaries. Statistics and models provide guidelines.
But Mark Twain gave us a cautionary warning: “Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.” Statistics indeed are pliable, but history demonstrates that market models are both pliable and unreliable.
Best Wishes.

To a small extent I probably match the profile described. But I'd describe it more as being frugal than obsessive.
I had to smile at the line about losing a home sale over a $200 haggle. When we sold our home (from a distance), we'd already conceded several thousand dollars which were for a justified repair, but balked when the buyers demanded a concession for something completely outrageous. I forget what it was, but even the realtors (both ours and the buyer's) felt it was so absurd that they put up the petty amount to get the sale to go through.
I'll scrimp on unnecessary expenses (e.g, I pay about $10-$30/year for cellphone service, depending on my limited usage). But I won't cut corners on essentials, like health care, or on family (stop smirking, all you people thinking of Greece :-)).
I resent paying more than I feel is a fair price, even if there's no substitute. Gluten-free items tend to cost over $8/pound, even for a cracker. So I rejoiced when I read that Cheerios is going gluten free (at no additional cost).
After cutting back on earned income (somewhat involuntarily), it took me awhile to resume entertainment expenses. But now, like OJ, I'm subscribed to the local symphony, and have even picked up tickets for the opera in the coming season. That's something else OJ might consider - one of the two best opera companies in the US is right in your backyard.
This thread gets me back to a theme I've been posting on (some might say excessively) lately - guaranteed income streams. Whether from immediate annuities, SS, or longevity insurance, they do help to relieve concern about needing to save (hoard?) for lifelong needs. 'Nuff said.
Regarding ACA costs - unfortunately, this was not one of the NYTimes best articles - it read more like a tabloid, leading with sensationalist figures. Try following a couple of the links in the article to get a calmer picture. One to the associated NYTimes Upshot column, the other to the KFF (Kaiser) study cited.

@bee and @msf
I did note previous in this thread about being able to itemize deductions for federal (which may also positively affect state taxes, too); and that this ability may have value with deducting mortgage interest and/or that mortgage interest may be the trigger for enough money to get into the itemized deduction section.
It has since been noted too about being able to deduct property tax, and other smaller items that would not otherwise be able to be used.
Another itemized dedcution that has become "more" important in the last year is for the medical expenses area. I will guess that this was not the case previously, except with special medical circumstances within a family's expenses.
NOW, with some families finding more extreme montetary expenses from compliance with ACA, I will again guess that more families now also have this area available for itemizing.
From experience with some friends and families, the following may now exist:
---much higher out of pocket costs for medical and dental plans
-including policy premiums
-co-pays (medical/dental)
-co-pays (meds)
I played devils advocate with several folks beginning the start period for new ACA rules to help determine previously unused/couldn't use itemized deductions for this area, due to percentage cut off points. Most of these people would not have considered these deductions in prior years.
Some were now able to include medical/dental expenses due to higher policy premiums, more out-of-pocket expenses for items related to medical and dental. There are many items available to include within this itemized area.
Obviously, everything will vary depending upon one's personal monetary circumstance.
However, this is another point of consideration for maintaining a mortgage to allow for this interest deduction that may allow for many other itemized deductions.
Lastly, as a method of testing whether all of this may be of value versus using the standard tax deduction; is to use tax software and create another "user" tax report as if it was going to be the "real thing". From my recall, the two most popular tax software programs let one create up to 6 tax returns. So, one may fill in the blanks to test if medical/dental deductions of all flavors would meet the cut-off percentage to be of value in reducing taxable income.
Sadly, as we know; tax things should not have to be so complex for regular folks, but this is how things are, eh?
Note: many years ago, we did move to a 15 year mortgage at something around 6.75%.
As has been noted here, we pretty much doubled up on the monthly payment. The only variable was that we funded retirement investments to the maximum first. The most important factor, as we here know; is that we did not live beyond our means and were and still are very good with money flows revolving around the wants and needs of human nature.
I think I rambled about what was in my mind an hour ago. :)
Take care,
Catch

If you cannot afford 15 year mortgages, there are 20 year plans and other variations.

Personally the best thing my wife and I have done financially was to convert our 30-year mortgage to a 15-year mortgage years ago. We will have no mortgage when we retire. That is huge.

One can accomplish this by making extra payments on a 30 year mortgage. The advantage of doing it this way is that if you ever need/want to not make the extra payment you don't have to. I often skip the extra payment around the holidays and make up the difference when I get my tax return. I like the flexibility of having a lower required payment (30 yr) that I choose

when to make extra payments (as if its a 15 yr).
Here's a calculator that help figure out what the extra payment would need to be:
what-if-i-pay-more-calculator

Years ago, I got a cold call from a mortgage broker, trying to convince me to refinance to a 15 year to pay it down faster. I said exactly what you wrote - that I could do that myself. His retort was that 98% of people who say they'll do this don't. I can't comment on the accuracy of his figure, but I'm sure that many people don't have the discipline to do this (not anyone here, of course :-)).
I did ultimately refinance, first to a 15 year, and later to a 15 year adjustable (first 5 years fixed) mortgage, figuring that I'd either refinance after 5 if rates were decent, or pay it off. I lost the flexibility you described, but gained lower rates. Again, no free lunch - I took on higher risk for better returns.

Personally the best thing my wife and I have done financially was to convert our 30-year mortgage to a 15-year mortgage years ago. We will have no mortgage when we retire. That is huge.

One can accomplish this by making extra payments on a 30 year mortgage. The advantage of doing it this way is that if you ever need/want to not make the extra payment you don't have to. I often skip the extra payment around the holidays and make up the difference when I get my tax return. I like the flexibility of having a lower required payment (30 yr) that I choose when to make extra payments (as if its a 15 yr).
Here's a calculator that help figure out what the extra payment would need to be:
what-if-i-pay-more-calculator

Paying off a 3% mortgage seems to me a very conservative/safe move. I'd liken it to owning a Treasury Bond netting holder a guaranteed 3% after taxes. As safe investments go, in an era of minuscule bond & CD rates, that 3% guaranteed return doesn't look bad.

Assuming you itemize deductions, you need to compare with a Treasury yielding 3% beforetaxes. It's a common mistake - one that Mr. Burns made as well, and that I commented on above.
The pretax cost of the mortgage is 3%. When you itemize, you get to reduce your taxable income. This results in a tax savings (and so lower net cost of the mortgage). So your aftertax cost of the mortgage is 3% x (1 -r%), where r% is your tax rate.
That's exactly the same equation and net yield on a Treasury with a 3% pretax rate. Same idea - income taxes reduce the magnitude of any figure - the yield of a mortgage or the cost of a mortgage.
The "lock" problem cuts both ways. In order to get a Treasury yielding 3% (pretax), you have to go out 30 years. Odds are, your mortgage has fewer years to go. The only way to get a better return on the cash is to take on more risk. As you suggested, rates might rise to 5-6%. In the meantime, you've put money into a lower yielding, shorter term Treasury, hoping (risk) that rates will rise soon enough and fast enough that you come out ahead. Or you've invested in a more risky vehicle to get a higher return.
TANSTAAFL.

Personally the best thing my wife and I have done financially was to convert our 30-year mortgage to a 15-year mortgage years ago. We will have no mortgage when we retire. That is huge.

@davidmoran
Oops - thanks for the correction!
No - the term's not original. "Sleep factor" comes up a lot when discussing investments. As it should. So, you really need to look at the mortgage decision in the context of all your investments and liabilities.
Paying off a 3% mortgage seems to me a very conservative/safe move. I'd liken it to buying a Treasury Bond netting holder a guaranteed 3% after taxes. As safe investments go, in an era of minuscule bond & CD rates, that 3% guaranteed return doesn't look bad.
The only fly in the ointment ... that 3% mortgage likely has a "lock". Should interest rates move up to 5-6% during the term of the loan, you'll feel very smart having kept the mortgage. In that case, bragging rights would go to those still holding 3% mortgages.
-
PS: I'm in the group that values home ownership. I like to be able to kick that dirt under my feet. However, many in our society lead perfectly normal happy lives as renters. Some of the upper level "rentals" in NYC @$10,000+ a month don't look too shabby!