Anyone have an annuity? I realize they are a bad deal and their onefold purpose is peace of mind. But when I turn 70 in 2 years if I put 17.5% of my portfolio in an immediate annuity it (plus my Social Security) would cover all my annual expenses and then some. New York Life is the only insurance company I would ever consider if I went that doubtful route.

I plan finances up to 85-87yo.....that way I know my plan will come true (work), your plan to 100yo is dead (no pun) to Start

At 65, I am a "young" retiree. Doing some harvesting each year from investments provides a significant portion of the annual funds that get spent in our household. The life expectancy table linked below tells me I have a 50% chance of living to be 89 and a 25% chance of living to be 97. That is almost forever from this "youngsters" perspective. And, those numbers are in line with other materials I have read. So, treating my portfolio something like an annuity seems reasonable....almost without even considering the probability of increased "old" age expenses and any wish to have some money left over when I am gone. Tracking my annual nominal and inflation adjusted return on investments net of all withdrawals and then averaging that information over multiple years helps me keep our annual spending within sustainable bounds. This method could also be used to help guide a path to $0 in some future year.
http://gosset.wharton.upenn.edu/mortality/perl/CalcForm.html

FYI: The task of balancing equity risk with the goal of achieving meaningful returns is top-of-mind for many investors and advisers. Long/short equity strategies, which allow managers to assume both long and short positions and to vary their exposure to the equity market over market cycles, may fill this role.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150317/BLOG09/150319924?template=printart

Hi Hank,
You expressed an interest in earlier S&P Persistence Scorecards that contain Bear market performance records.
The S&P team has been doing this type of analyses for some time now, and their earlier reports are accessible. Here is a Link to their 2010 edition that should satisfy your curiosity:
http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline;+filename=PersistenceScorecard_Nov10.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application/pdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243781101148&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8
Wow, that’s some address. The study findings change each year numerically, but the general overarching findings do not. With minor exceptions, their 2010 conclusion resembles their most recent conclusion. Here is their 2010 top finding:
“Very few funds have managed to consistently repeat top-half or top-quartile performance. Over the five years ending September 2010, only 4.10% of large-cap funds, 3.80% of mid-cap funds, and 4.60% of small-cap funds maintained a top-half ranking over five consecutive 12-month periods. Expectations of a random outcome would suggest a rate of 6.25%.”
I like your long-term equities perspective. I have owned several activity managed mutual funds for over two decades. However, for even shorter timeframes that exceed one year, I might cut down a little on my equity positions while not abandoning them completely.
Especially today, the returns expected from fixed income sources barely nose-out inflation rates. I think I would attempt to minimize equity risk by very broad equity international and product diversification in holdings like emerging markets, real estate, and commodities. I do keep enough near-cash reserves in short term bonds and money markets to survive for at least two years.
That’s just me wandering a bit. I respect that all investors have different priorities, different risk profiles, different size war-chests, and different investment philosophies. More power and more profit to all of us.
Best Wishes.

I always remember my first investment (an IRA) for $2,500, I think after a year it was worth $2650..... I said to myself this investing will never amount to anything...
After 30years...no (real) money worries.......surprise yourself

Junkster recently mused in a post about striking a balance between reaping now and sowing for the future as we manage our individual portfolios during our "retirement" years. The article in this link suggests it may be appropriate to plan on living to 100 as we consider this question. It also suggests we manage our individual portfolios like endowments, seeking to balance annual withdrawals and portfolio growth to avoid eroding the principal.
The idea of looking at our individual situations and then deciding on an amount to set aside for the future -- be it the nominal or inflation adjusted principal or some other amount -- makes sense to me. (It is the basic approach I use to manage my portfolio.) The decided upon amount can be set aside for use if a dramatic future increase in medical and related care expenses requires it. And, it can include additional funds to be left to our heirs and/or to do good things in the world after we are gone. The remainder of the ongoing total returns in our individual portfolios can be reaped now.
The success of this approach assumes we will avoid doing too much reaping after one or two good years. So, "Reaping Now" needs to be averaged over some number of years. But, the idea that we each need to have a conversation with ourselves and make peace with much we want to be setting aside "indefinitely" for the future makes sense to me.
http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/mutual-funds/articles/2015/03/12/the-100-year-old-portfolio-investments-for-a-long-life

I have figured out for sure that I'll never have the comfortable amounts that get referenced in investing articles from newspapers and magazines. Half a million? Not gonna happen. I have to take satisfaction that between wifey and myself, our "heirs" are recipients from time to time already, in no small way. Life's not fair. But it's LOTS more unfair to some others. And so, we do our part to even the score. "It's a good thing." (---uncle Martha Stewart.)

I plan finances up to 85-87yo.....that way I know my plan will come true (work), your plan to 100yo is dead (no pun) to Start

I took another look at the article, and the author's previous article which further described the study, and I think the point is that just because a fund had a great year, doesn't mean it will persistently have great years. Bill Miller did it for a stretch, but then he came back to the mean.
The author's prior article on the subject (July 19, 2014) recognizes that over a longer term, some fund managers do beat the market. He points out that Hodges Small and SouthernSun Small Cap "rewarded shareholders spectacularly, turning a $10,000 investment to $35,000 over those five years, ... By contrast, the same investment in a Standard & Poor's 500-stock index fund would have become more than $23,000..."
I believe the value of the study by S&P Down Jones is to point out the risks of buying the hot funds that had a great year--as opposed to considering the long-term and the methodology of the fund. Too many investors buy the top one-year performers and end up selling when the funds have bad years.
[I do believe these forums lose some of their value when they descend into a right/left struggle. It can be a real turnoff.]

The AMGN 5% bump was significant given its market cap, and pulled several other firms with a similar cholesterol compound up as well, including REGN.

Over the last 20 years Health Care funds have shellac the overall market in both to the upside on gains as well to the downside on losses. Here's VGHCX (Health Care) vs VTSMX (the Market) over the last 20 years. Will this continue?

Sure thing, tb. Luck has nothing to do with being naturally inclined towards athletic skills. The body type you were born with has absolutely nothing to do with success or opportunity. The world is just full of 5 foot tall professional basketball players, and 120lb slightly built fullbacks, famous actors who are deaf-mutes, and engineers with no aptitude for math. The physical and mental capabilities and limitations that you are born with mean absolutely nothing. All that counts is "developing skills". Sure thing, tb.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
WSJ Slant:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-futures-trade-higher-1426508262
Bloomberg Slant:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-16/u-s-stock-index-futures-advance-after-three-weeks-of-retreat
Reuters Slant:
http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USKBN0MC14N20150316
MarketWatch Slant:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-chinese-stimulus-soaring-european-stocks-send-futures-higher-2015-03-16/print
WSJ Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
Current Futures:
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

My Mo' Mo' List:
VHT
EWJ
VBK
VXF
VOT
IIF
Here VHT (1 yr chart)

My No/No List:
USO
VDE
BRAQ
GDX
GDXJ
GCC
Here GCC ( 1yr chart):

I imagine that any bond type mutual fund pays a monthly dividend. If you want to explore ETF's that do you can start with the link below although they are not listed or sorted in terms of frequency. If you choose to be a subscriber ($5 for first month, cancel anytime) you may find the list you're looking for. Mr. Domash is a straight shooter.
http://www.dividenddetective.com/dividend_etfs.htm

Hi Guys,
Be careful here; be very careful indeed.
Trustworthy statistical sets don’t lie when based on honestly representative surveys. Their interpretations are an entirely different matter. In those interpretations, definitions matter greatly. A misinterpretation might not be dishonest; it might simply be a conflated reading of the stats.
Based on my quick reading of the referenced article, and an even quicker reading of your comments, I suspect MFO posters are conflating the S&P data that is the primary source for the article.
The article quotes data from the S&P Persistency scorecard that measures mutual fund performance persistency. That specific data records consistency of returns, not absolute total returns over any integrated multiple periods.
The author focuses attention on the top 25% of funds over the initial baseline year, and than reports only on their persistency in remaining in that top quartile for each of the next four years. They mostly fail to do so.
But that observation says nothing about the cumulative returns of these funds in the entire reporting period. A baseball player who hits in excess of .300 for 4 of any 5 seasons, but has a sub-par .299 in one of those seasons would also fail the S&P Persistency test. I would still trust that .300 hitter in any circumstances and would want him on my team (portfolio).
Properly assembled, statistics don’t lie. However, some writers do purposely lie using statistics to boost a flawed position. Many more writers misuse stats because of statistical innumeracy. And readers add to the chaos by misreading and/or misinterpreting the quoted statistics. User be very careful indeed.
The referenced piece tells more about the fund manager skill/luck debate than about the more important Excess Returns delivery over time.
Best Regards.

Wonderful article! It never bothers to tell us what it means by "the market", however only 2 funds finished in the top quartile of whatever it is for five straight years, less than randomness would produce. This is said to show that you should buy index funds. However, I can guarantee you that no index funds finished in the top quartile of whatever it is for five straight years, either. Index funds aren't designed to do that. They're designed to beat something like 55% or 60% of funds year after year after year with their advantage accumulating as time goes by. So what is it supposed to prove when you show that active funds don't finish in the top quartile all the time?
The above is not to say that I have anything against indexing a stock portfolio. I would say that this is exactly the kind of article that I would expect from the New York Times.

Junkster recently mused in a post about striking a balance between reaping now and sowing for the future as we manage our individual portfolios during our "retirement" years. The article in this link suggests it may be appropriate to plan on living to 100 as we consider this question. It also suggests we manage our individual portfolios like endowments, seeking to balance annual withdrawals and portfolio growth to avoid eroding the principal.
The idea of looking at our individual situations and then deciding on an amount to set aside for the future -- be it the nominal or inflation adjusted principal or some other amount -- makes sense to me. (It is the basic approach I use to manage my portfolio.) The decided upon amount can be set aside for use if a dramatic future increase in medical and related care expenses requires it. And, it can include additional funds to be left to our heirs and/or to do good things in the world after we are gone. The remainder of the ongoing total returns in our individual portfolios can be reaped now.
The success of this approach assumes we will avoid doing too much reaping after one or two good years. So, "Reaping Now" needs to be averaged over some number of years. But, the idea that we each need to have a conversation with ourselves and make peace with much we want to be setting aside "indefinitely" for the future makes sense to me.
http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/mutual-funds/articles/2015/03/12/the-100-year-old-portfolio-investments-for-a-long-life

Hank....EXAXCTLY...thats what makes these type articles Silly and meaningless (which the NYT is famous for) I could write an article on the next page of the paper on the same day that headlined
"60% of (my) managed funds beat the stock market index the last 5 years"
...so draw your own conclusion....
The conclusion is that the information is meaningless..

Hi Ted. I glanced at that in the NY Times whose headline stories I receive daily on Kindle.
I've never had a lot of confidence in their financial reporting - though same goes for many other publications. What struck me is they seem to be basing these conclusions on the period immediately following the 08-09 market meltdown. I do recall that during the "roaring 90s" index investing became very popular and the S&P 500 was greatly run up. It than suffered and lagged for several years following that hot stretch. So, I'd expect a rebound following the 08-09 market wash-out. This probably helps account for the great run it's had in recent years.
None of this is intended to dispute the advantages of holding index funds for the very long haul. I'd agree on that. But to draw conclusions on just a 6-year stretch strikes me as a lot of journalistic hoopla.