FYI: After more than two years in pilot and $17B in assets, Personal Advisor Services ready to take on the expanding field.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150505/FREE/150509967?template=printart

Re msf's question:
JohnC is correct that "funds-of-funds" should be viewed differently and might warrant a higher allocation. One of these, RPSIX, currently comprises my largest holding at just over 14%.
1. I prefer to view money management decisions in terms of percentages (not in dollar sums).
2. I don't have set limits. However, I become uncomfortable when any one fund exceeds about 20% of total assets. With equity funds, 10% in any single fund is enough.
3. I believe it's wise to diversify (fairly evenly) among at least 3 different fund houses or other custodians.
-
Added: The above reflects the thinking of a 70+ year-old, 15-20 years into retirement, already in the distribution stage. Were I younger, I'd have a higher risk tolerance and would be much more concentrated in a few good growth funds.

Personally, I would never drop $100,000 in any single offering, whether it be a bond or fund/stock. I'm a very cautious, conservative investor.

This raises an interesting question. You wrote that your portfolio is around $1M, so (quickly doing the long division :-)) that means that you would not put more than 10% in a single fund.
That rules out "couch potato" portfolios. What do people feel is a maximum percentage to allocate to a holding, or should it be a dollar amount (so a $5M portfolio might hold 50+ funds)?

@msf and @Junkster, Thanks to both of you for those clear and informative answers. The statistics show we are living longer but as with any statistical study, there is a mean average. So 50% don't make it to that certain age and 50% go beyond it. On which side am I or anyone else here? Well, that is the million dollar question. Family history and physical shape are good determinating factors but they are not 100%. In my case, my family has a history of long life well into the 80's and beyond. Then again, there is also a family history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer. I already have the diabetes. So for me, taking it while the taking is good seems to be the prudent choice.

I would think the odds of loss in any of these worthy funds over the next 5y to be nontrivial, no matter what they do, even, you know, BERIX and FPA. So I would stick a hundred thou, or even more, into SC 4% bonds, and make a few thou against inflation. I mean, I like very much PONDX, FSICX, DODIX, FTBFX, BOND, PDI, and a few others, but have had trouble breaking even with all of them over selected short recent periods, when I was overmonitoring.

Are you seriously suggesting that this poor fellow put $100,000 into a single bond offering issued by this company? I took a quick look at the prospectus for this bond. It's unrated, unsecured, and the protective covenants for the investor are practically nonexistent. I did a bit more research and found that S&P had rated a secured bond issue from SolarCity that matures in 2022 at BBB+, and an unsecured bond from them maturing in 2022 at BB. BB is not investment grade. Other than some posters here dropping dead from the shock, what happens if somebody like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul gets elected president in 2016 and the investment tax credit and other subsidies for solar power gets dropped? It's questionable whether there will be a secondary market for these securities (that's from the prospectus), and SolarCity isn't obligated to redeem them early under any circumstances.
I strongly suggest that the original poster take a good look at these risk factors if he's considering this SolarCity offering.

Thank you for doing some research on this matter. Personally, I would never drop $100,000 in any single offering, whether it be a bond or fund/stock. I'm a very cautious, conservative investor.

So, it looks like I may be wrong about next year's OC cost.
I may be able to get plans at $240/month with the subsidy.
this is because my income is 345% of the poverty line, over 400% and you don't get one.
you are eligible for an estimated subsidy of:
$2,737.2annually
$228.1 monthly

I would think the odds of loss in any of these worthy funds over the next 5y to be nontrivial, no matter what they do, even, you know, BERIX and FPA. So I would stick a hundred thou, or even more, into SC 4% bonds, and make a few thou against inflation. I mean, I like very much PONDX, FSICX, DODIX, FTBFX, BOND, PDI, and a few others, but have had trouble breaking even with all of them over selected short recent periods, when I was overmonitoring.

Are you seriously suggesting that this poor fellow put $100,000 into a single bond offering issued by this company? I took a quick look at the prospectus for this bond. It's unrated, unsecured, and the protective covenants for the investor are practically nonexistent. I did a bit more research and found that S&P had rated a secured bond issue from SolarCity that matures in 2022 at BBB+, and an unsecured bond from them maturing in 2022 at BB. BB is not investment grade. Other than some posters here dropping dead from the shock, what happens if somebody like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul gets elected president in 2016 and the investment tax credit and other subsidies for solar power gets dropped? It's questionable whether there will be a secondary market for these securities (that's from the prospectus), and SolarCity isn't obligated to redeem them early under any circumstances.
I strongly suggest that the original poster take a good look at these risk factors if he's considering this SolarCity offering.

FYI: The reversal in, well, everything continued on Tuesday. Stocks across the globe finished sharply lower and so did bond prices. Recent market action continues to be dominated by the sell off in the Treasury and Bund markets. You might never pin down a specific trigger, but it seems that amorphous concerns about the eventuality of a Federal Reserve rate hike have manifested like an F4-power tornado. It’s spilling into growth-focused stocks, including small caps. The sickness also is spreading to yield-oriented defensive stocks. Much is riding on Friday’s April jobs report from the Labor Department. Markets are skittish for the first time in a while, and a red-hot reading on jobs growth might cause a full-blown case of Fed-related jitters.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/05/05/etf-market-vital-signs-cinco-de-mayo-the-sea-was-angry-that-day/tab/print/

I may pay $0 for OC - see question here.
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/20854/obamacar-aca-can-anyone-explain-the-income-rules-for-me

Retiring on June 1 at age 59....getting COBRA for about $1K a month and will figure out what the ACA has in store for me at the end of the year since I am not insurable otherwise.
The week after I retire, I'm headed to Italy for 3 weeks.
There are perks for living below your means during your working career.

>> If OC was the law before my retiring I may have had second thoughts.
Dex, when you were running the numbers at 51 for healthcare costs until Medicare, what did you plug in and what did you base them on? Was your nonjob private insurance inexpensive somehow?

In 2008, I paid $205.83/month from BC/BS I was able to keep it in the 240 range until OC. Then it went to 335 same BC/BS policy but OC adds increased it. Next year they are canceling the policy so I have to go full OC. Which will be close to $600/mo the last time l looked.
I'm still very OK financially. Part of this is because I'll get Medicaid in 5 years and Georgia does not tax retires' dividends/interest/SS/Pensions after 62(?). However, I am feeling less flush due to OC. I won't be changing my spending habits.
However, if I knew about the OC costs, I may have not stopped working or delayed it for a couple of years. It is just too much of an unknown for 14 years. Spending $2,400 Vs $7,200 and an unknown future is disconcerting.
This is just another reason why I don't think many will be able to do what I did in the future.

“The REIT market is very volatile, down 75% between 2007 and 2009 — which was terrific if you were in a re-balancing situation — and then up 400% from that bottom,”
I wanted to create a picture of the above quote using a personal investment ( I experienced this with VGSIX). I wanted to highlight the recover time (shown in the form of a triangle).
It is this the period of time (recovery from maximum Draw Down or MAXDD) an investor wants to shorten if possible. Six years was a long time to wait in my opinion.

I think a 50/50 split makes a lot of sense. I think so for a couple of reasons:
1) The USD has probably made a good portion of its move already so from a tactical perspective, it makes sense to take some of this bet off the table.
2) Longer-term, I like the 50/50 split because it removes (at least most of) the emotion when it comes to what will happen in the shorter-term. If USD continues to rise, you won't have to go back and think "man, I wish I had hedged" because you did (50% of it) and vice versa.

Related RE article:

"In a rising market, REITs also have some of the same challenges as directly owned property. “The REIT market is very volatile, down 75% between 2007 and 2009 — which was terrific if you were in a rebalancing situation — and then up 400% from that bottom,” Haraway says. “I handle REITs as maybe 10% of a portfolio. REITs tend to lead the other indexes and provide some diversification.”
Along with volatility, REITs also carry interest rate risk, Altfest points out, and aren’t always available at favorable prices. “We’re value investors, and a lot of money is chasing REITs. Valuations are high and yields are low,” he says.
Instead of (or in addition to) REITs and direct real estate ownership, Altfest suggests private partnerships, in which a group of people pool money to make a real estate buy and pay for its professional management."
real-estates-new-rules

I traded VGK for the hedged HEDJ in November and have been rewarded for doing so as the Euro became more devalued as compared to the dollar. Although the European market closed down today the EURO continued to rise.
It would seem that somewhere along the way HEDJ will reflect the rising EURO and I may want to return all or a portion to VGK.
Because the Euro-Dollar is unpredictable and depends on the US interest rates, Greece financial improvement, ECB quantitative easing etc., I am thinking of diversifying my European funds in 50% VGK and 50% HEDJ.
Would appreciate other opinions on their approach to European funds with regard to current situations.
prinx

FYI: The managers of Phocas Real Estate buy property companies that should do well even in a declining market.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.kiplinger.com/printstory.php?pid=13514
M* Snapshot PHREX: http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PHREX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot PHREX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/PHREX?countrycode=US
PHREX Is Unranked In The (RE) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/real-estate/phocas-real-estate-fund/phrex

I'm 50 years old with more than $100,000 sitting in banks and credit unions earning about 0.50 % in interest.

While you are considering the many options in the various posts to this thread, you can easily double your interest from the 0.50% you are getting in "banks and credit unions".....by going with an internet only FDIC insured bank that pays about 1% interest on a savings account.
Just for example, Ally bank pays 0.99%, FDIC insured, savings acct, without locking your money up at all, and several others pay 1% or even very slightly higher. These are name banks (well known), also FDIC insured
You can also get 2.25% in FDIC insured 5-year CD's at several internet banks (e.g., Synchrony Bank).
One strategy several Bogleheads are using is to do this at a bank with a low early withdrawal fee. I believe there is an FDIC insured internet bank with only a 90 day interest early withdrawal penalty, so many Bogleheads are going that route, figuring that paying a 90 day interest rate penalty in the event that rates rise significantly and they want out of their 5-year 2.25% interest CD is not too bad.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2015/05/the-qe-era/print/

>> If OC was the law before my retiring I may have had second thoughts.
Dex, when you were running the numbers at 51 for healthcare costs until Medicare, what did you plug in and what did you base them on? Was your nonjob private insurance inexpensive somehow?
Lots of impressive early retirees here! Way to go. I am delaying taking SS until 70, two years off, chiefly on principle, but have shaky confidence of living to wherever the lines cross, like 82 or whatever. Hope so. The best way to think of reduced vs max benefits is to look at the lines, as msf implies; see here, halfway down the page:
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/When-Should-You-Take-Social-Security
I have had a lot of arthritis surgeries under Medicare with supplement, also an umbrella managed Medicare plan w rx (forget what this is called, Preferred maybe), so it seems (seemed) like a wise idea to me, though I have not run the numbers. I am now cash at the dentist, though. Maybe I should look into going without supp.

Edit: I am paying then around $3600 annually for health insurance. But that is still far cheaper than the close to $7000 I was paying before Medicare kicked in. And that private policy had a $2500 deductible.

Thanks, I currently have $8,500 budgeted for Health Insurance in 5 years when I'm 65. I might be able to reduce that some - maybe down to 6,000. But, I have to update my budget for years 61 - 64.