My regional bank has a program that each time I use my debit card, it transfers $.50 into my savings account and at the end of the year it matches what I have had transferred up to a predetermined amount (can't remember what the limit is ) and last year it was about $45, which I considered interest , so I put it in my savings account. Since interest rates are so pathetically low, every little bit helps. Other banks may havea similar program.

Hi Ted,
Thank you for referencing the WSJ article by Brett Arends on “A Random Way to Get Rich”.
Although I subscribe to the Journal, I missed this article. I believe it provides important investment guidance for several reasons.
It emphasizes the significance of careful benchmark selection. If you don’t measure anything with precision, you are likely to reach a wrong conclusion or design.
Typically, especially with respect to MFO, benchmarks are discussed in terms of individual mutual fund holdings. It is inappropriate to contrast the performance of a Balanced fund against the S&P 500 Index.
Extending the benchmark concept to the next level, it is equally inappropriate to contrast the performance of a complex portfolio with many moving parts against the simple S&P 500 Index. Arends article addresses this particular issue, and he offers a flexible alternate benchmark yardstick. Good for him, and good for us.
In his piece, Arends said: “It is well-established that most active money managers destroy value compared with a traditional stock index. It is less well-known that the traditional stock indexes destroy value when compared with just picking stocks at random.”
The second part of that quote demonstrates the utility of portfolio diversification and the need for a meaningful construction of a benchmark measurement to better judge performance. Bad measurement precedes faulty actions.
In the article, Arends reports that in 99% of the random cases explored, the random selection approach outperformed even the Index. The fact that the analysis was repeatedly completed in a random manner strongly suggests that the calculations were made using a Monte Carlo-based tool. Good for them. That’s a perfect application for random, uncertain problems.
However, their findings must be interpreted with some skepticism and caution, especially since the details and the assumptions of the analysis procedure were not reported. For example, if the Blinded Monkey had all stocks as their targets (small and large), a comparison against the S&P 500 Index (large only) is not proper and is, consequently, defective.
As a sidebar, the Blinded Monkey is an overkill to illustrate the point. It is unlikely that a non-blinded monkey would do any better at dart throwing than his blinded compadre. Investment outcomes are a combination of luck, skill, and timeframe.
I found the article both delightful and informative. Too bad that the MFO readership numbers are so low.
Best Wishes.

Scott, you nailed it. Kiplinger's, 2008:
"But Nygren's largest blunder by far was his heavy investment in Washington Mutual (WM), the country's largest thrift. At one point, WaMu represented a towering 15% position in Select's portfolio. The Seattle-based bank has written off $20 billion of losses on home mortgages and dramatically diluted shareholder value by raising new capital. The stock price has plunged nearly 90% in a year."
In 2007 the average person on the street in Seattle knew more about WaMu's house of cards than Nygren did.

Thanks.
Great managers make sizable mistakes at times. That's fine. I would actually respect a manager more if they admitted it, told me what they learned from it and how it may change the way they approach an investment going forward. It kind of reminds me of the whole story of Bill Miller giving a speech promoting Bear Stearns in the midst of its falling apart:
"In The Big Short, author Michael Lewis recounts a similar episode. On a Friday morning in March 2008, Miller was invited to present the bullish case for investment bank Bear Stearns, which had traded at $53 the previous day. During a Q&A session after his presentation, an audience member asked Miller a question: "Mr. Miller, from the time you started talking, Bear Stearns stock has fallen more than 20 points. Would you buy more now?" Miller's answer: "Yeah, sure, I'd buy more."
By the following Monday, Bear Stearns had been sold to J.P. Morgan for $2 a share."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-miller-large-cap-stocks-represent-a-once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity/
You have a manger who manages well over $10B in AUM and when asked about your biggest investing mistake you're going to give some story about some silver coins when you were in college? Additionally, in terms of Nygren, the Wamu incident is what comes to mind - when I saw the title of the thread, that's the only thing I thought it could be.
I've said this before about people like Gartman, whose issues (like the lousy performance of his etf) has never been questioned.
Meh.

Quoting: "Isn't Ukraine a risky bet, even for you?
This isn't much different than others. During the financial crisis, Lithuania ran into short-term solvency challenges because it couldn't access capital markets. We were the largest investors providing them short-term liquidity. Now, Lithuania is issuing debt with very low yields, and no one even talks about it. That took about four years. Hungary also took about two to three years to pay off. We may need to be patient. It may be three years before some of these factors can move in a positive direction in Ukraine."
.....I note that my PREMX still holds debt from The Ukraine among its top 5 positions--- but just 1.51% of total AUM. (Fund Manager is Michael Cornelius.) And the last time there was a change to the portfolio reported, PREMX had reduced its Ukrainian position.
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=PREMX&region=usa&culture=en-US
(More from the Hassenstab thing:) "Everyone is focused on the shortage of capital globally as the Fed tapers. But they are ignoring what the BOJ is doing, which will more than offset that. They're getting the call wrong by being bearish on all emerging markets.
What does that extra money mean for emerging markets?
In 2013, the divergence in performance between the best and worst emerging market was more than 40 percentage points. We have always carefully picked countries with strong fundamentals and where we felt appropriate policy decisions were being made. Even though everyone has turned bullish recently, we would be cautious on more vulnerable places like Turkey."

Scott, you nailed it. Kiplinger's, 2008:
"But Nygren's largest blunder by far was his heavy investment in Washington Mutual (WM), the country's largest thrift. At one point, WaMu represented a towering 15% position in Select's portfolio. The Seattle-based bank has written off $20 billion of losses on home mortgages and dramatically diluted shareholder value by raising new capital. The stock price has plunged nearly 90% in a year."
In 2007 the average person on the street in Seattle knew more about WaMu's house of cards than Nygren did.

I feel you on the inflation front. The things I buy seem to be going up - not staying flat.

I think there's definitely noticeable inflation occurring. Not only from literal price increases, but from the frequently noted package size changes. Additionally, I think the aspect that isn't discussed enough is lesser and lesser quality. Clothing, appliances and other things may be similarly priced or cheaper, but parts are more flimsy, fabric is cheaper, etc.
I do think you're seeing real inflation in things that people need here and globally and not as much in things we don't need/wants.
"Kraft (KRFT) raised prices by 10% on its product lines - Maxwell House, Yuban roast and ground coffee brands, as a result of climbing bean costs which went into effect on June 6.
J.M. Smucker (SJM) has already increased prices on its retail brand's Folgers, Dunkin' Donut roast, and ground coffee products by ~9% last week. This past week the company also reported lower sales in FQ4 due to pricing actions in the quarter."
http://seekingalpha.com/news/1790183-retail-coffee-prices-rise-by-9minus-10-percent
As I noted the other week, even the Fed's own cafeteria is admitting 3-33% inflation in food costs. (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-24/federal-reserve-admits-truth-internal-memo-prices-continue-rise-between-3-and-33)

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://online.wsj.com/articles/bill-nygren-of-oakmark-funds-on-his-biggest-mistake-wsj-money-june-2014-1402078503#printMode

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/You-probably-don-t-have-enough-money-to-retire-5536519.php

He's certainly done well.
Great Owl...
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/fund-ratings/?symbol=smvlx&submit=Submit
And I share some of his views on positive outlook.
Think Ms. Brill wrote a good article.
Here's link to David's profile:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2013/06/smead-value-fund-smvlx-july-2013/
His expenses remain too high...1.35% on $775M.
I don't see much in way of downside protection to justify the ER, so he's benefiting from the bull market.
Only in bull markets can long-only fund managers rationalize high ERs...and get away with it. (Ha! At least that is what I want to believe.)

FYI: Copy & Paste 6/7/14: Beverly Goodman; Barron's
Regards,
Ted
Last week, Brian Rogers, the longtime and highly successful manager of T. Rowe Price Equity Income (ticker: PRFDX), announced that he'll be stepping down in October 2015, on his 30th anniversary. He'll remain the firm's chairman and chief investment officer.
Just to reiterate: He'll relinquish his money management duties only, 16 months from now. "About half the people I've spoken to thought I just got fired, and about 30% thought I was leaving this fall," Rogers says with a chuckle.
But really, that kind of notice is what we should expect, especially on such high-profile funds as the $30 billion Equity Income, which gained 11.3% annualized from its 1985 inception through May, according to Morningstar, narrowly besting the S&P 500 and the Russell 1000 Value, but with much less volatility. "It reassures investors when there's a good succession plan in place," says Morningstar analyst Katie Reichart.
Rogers is reducing his responsibilities for personal reasons. "Around the holidays, I was reflecting on the fact that in 2015 I'll have been managing the fund for 30 years, and that I'd also be turning 60," Rogers says. "And in the very back of my mind was Jack Laporte." Laporte had been with the firm since 1976 and managed T. Rowe Price New Horizons (PRNHX), the small-company growth fund that quintupled in size under his 22 years of management. He retired at the end of 2012, and died in August 2013. He was 68.
John Linehan, 49, will replace Rogers on Equity Income -- but not just yet. "The next 12 months will look a lot like the last 12 months," Rogers says. Linehan, who ran T. Rowe Price Value (TRVLX) from 2003 to 2009 with much success, has been on the advisory council for Equity Income since 1999, and co-manages a separate account with Rogers. The two already talk daily, Rogers says, and the fund won't look very different under his management. In the meantime, Linehan will "spend a fair amount of time getting to know our [institutional] clients," Rogers says.
MANAGER CHANGES AREN'T necessarily good or bad, but they do need to be handled thoughtfully and transparently. It wasn't much of a surprise when legendary investor Bill Miller announced he was scaling back in the midst of a disastrous performance in 2010, after more than 15 years of outstanding returns. Sam Peters was named co-manager of what was then Legg Mason Value Trust; it has since been rebranded as ClearBridge Value (LMVTX). "Bill started talking to me at least a year before," Peters says. "When I was named co-manager, it was a real 'co-'; we both had veto power right away." The fund was in need of a breath of fresh air (assets had fallen to $4 billion from a peak of $21 billion in 2007), and Peters helped make some pretty big changes, such as opting for bigger companies and fewer names in the portfolio, and increasing allocation to the health-care sector and decreasing its stake in financial companies. The fund's active share, a measure of how much a manager deviates from the benchmark, rose from 60% to 80%. "We were very deliberate in not surprising people," Peters says. "A lot of our clients already knew me, and I got to know the others." He also had to field questions as to how he'd differ from the legendary Miller—some wanted big changes, others didn't. "We wanted people to know there would definitely be some change, but nothing dramatic." Peters became sole manager in May 2012; in 2013 the fund beat 92% of its peers.
NOT ALL HIGH-PROFILE FUNDS telegraph their changes so effectively. Fidelity Magellan (FMAGX) still seems to be reeling from Peter Lynch's departure in 1990. Lynch's successor, Morris Smith, lasted just two years. Bob Stansky, whose nine-year tenure is the longest since Lynch, presided over the fund's rise to peak assets of more than $100 billion in the late '90s, and its fall to $52 billion by the time he left in 2005. Harry Lange also struggled with performance and outflows. Current manager Jeff Feingold has improved performance in his less than three years on the job; Magellan now has $16 billion in assets. "If someone's not performing, Fidelity isn't shy about removing them," Reichart says.
Brian Hogan, president of Fidelity's equity group, which oversees $750 billion, points to the planning around the firm's most impressive funds: Will Danoff's $108 billion Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX) and Joel Tillinghast's $47 billion Fidelity Low-Priced Stock (FLPSX). "We have surrounded Joel and Will with like-minded individuals," Hogan says. Danoff just hand-picked John Roth, manager of Fidelity New Millenium (FMILX) to co-manage Danoff's smaller fund, the $27 billion Fidelity Advisor New Insights (FNIAX); Roth is widely thought to be Danoff's eventual successor on Contra. Tillinghast took a three-month sabbatical in 2011, and the team created to manage in his absence then is still in place. Neither is likely to leave soon.
The average tenure of a T. Rowe manager is 10 years, compared to the industry average of five, but the firm has lost some impressive talent recently, including Kris Jenner, who took others from his team at T. Rowe Price Health Sciences (PRHSX) to start a hedge fund in 2013. Two other top managers -- Joe Milano and Rob Bartolo -- left the company, and the mutual fund business, soon after. "There were a handful of departures we weren't happy with," Rogers acknowledges. "But if you're going to do what they did, doing it in your 40s makes sense."

What does this mean for bond investors?
It changes the countries and sectors that benefit from China's growth. In the past, countries like Australia benefitted from selling iron ore and coal to China. Increasingly, countries like Korea, selling cars and cellphones, or Malaysia, selling palm oil for food products, will benefit. That's good news for these countries' economies. Korea is our second-biggest country allocation in the global bond fund. Korea's economy is benefiting as companies are competing on the quality of their products, not price. For example, companies like Samsung and Hyundai have been able to grab market share with their products, so the strength of their currency versus competing companies in countries like Japan matters less. The economy will likely grow at 3.5% to 4%.
So people will buy "made in Korea" products because they're good, not because they're cheap. How else does Korea differ from some other emerging markets?
While some emerging markets have been hit by the Fed tapering and a possible shortage of global liquidity that could make it harder for them to finance deficits, Korea has never relied on that global liquidity. It has a record current-account surplus, which means it is exporting more than it imports. It also has very little government debt.
What attracted you to Ukraine?
It is actually a very rich country with an educated population, incredible agricultural wealth, and a manufacturing base that, with investment, could improve. There is long-term potential. The good news is it started this crisis with very solvent debt conditions—only 40% debt to GDP. That's important because it indicates a country's ability to pay back debt. [The European Union average debt/GDP was 87%.] It's been a question of accessing global capital and liquidity.
How is Ukraine handling the crisis?
A crisis is a horrible thing to waste, and Ukraine didn't waste it. The urgency let a long list of structural reforms pass that had previously run into opposition. They signed a good package with the International Monetary Fund, which unlocked other potential international assistance; now they have ample liquidity. It is also moving toward a flexible exchange rate rather than one that is pegged. That should weaken the currency, making exports more competitive, which will help its balance of what it imports versus exports. Ukraine is also freezing public wages and hiring to cut costs and reforming the way it awards government contracts to tackle corruption.
What about the political crisis?
Hopefully it can engineer changes that move Ukraine away from the tug of war—like moving away from NATO membership and giving some of its Russian-speaking states more autonomy in a decentralized, federalist system. The economy is highly integrated with those of Europe and Russia, so it's in Ukraine's best interest to deepen both relationships and, therefore, decide against joining NATO. That would allow Russia to move away from intervention, and Ukraine can then live up to its full economic potential. The high voter turnout for Petro Poroshenko [voted president-elect last month] gives him a solid mandate.
Isn't Ukraine a risky bet, even for you?
This isn't much different than others. During the financial crisis, Lithuania ran into short-term solvency challenges because it couldn't access capital markets. We were the largest investors providing them short-term liquidity. Now, Lithuania is issuing debt with very low yields, and no one even talks about it. That took about four years. Hungary also took about two to three years to pay off. We may need to be patient. It may be three years before some of these factors can move in a positive direction in Ukraine.
Let's talk about currencies. What's attractive?
We've been adding the Mexican peso. There's a lot of fear that if U.S. growth improves and interest rates go up, it's bad for Mexico. But our argument is that it's great, because Mexico has taken over the world in terms of manufacturing. Remittance flow is also highly tied to the U.S. economy.
While the Federal Reserve is finishing up its bond-buying, Japan is just beginning. What is your view of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's reform stimulus efforts, or Abenomics?
Quantitative easing is a core part of Abenomics. It is easier to execute and the only part that has really taken hold. As long as Abe is popular, he'll rely on QE heavily. Japan has high debt levels—200% debt to GDP and an 8% fiscal deficit. In the past, Japan could fund its deficits domestically from the savings of the private sector. Now, that is no longer enough, and the government has to borrow more money from the central bank, which is printing money.
What does that mean for investors?
The yen will continue to weaken because of the BOJ money-printing, which is why we are long dollars and short yen. Capital will continue to flow abroad—anecdotally, it is already moving from Japan into Southeast Asia and Latin America.
Will the BOJ's bond-buying mitigate the effect of the Fed's tapering?
Everyone is focused on the shortage of capital globally as the Fed tapers. But they are ignoring what the BOJ is doing, which will more than offset that. They're getting the call wrong by being bearish on all emerging markets.
What does that extra money mean for emerging markets?
In 2013, the divergence in performance between the best and worst emerging market was more than 40 percentage points. We have always carefully picked countries with strong fundamentals and where we felt appropriate policy decisions were being made. Even though everyone has turned bullish recently, we would be cautious on more vulnerable places like Turkey.
What gives you the comfort to pull the trigger on an investment?
It's the feeling in the pit of your stomach when you are questioning yourself and everyone else thinks you are wrong. If we are confident in the fundamentals and the team has ripped it apart, that's usually a good check that we are doing the right thing. If it's really easy and everyone is in agreement, it's probably not.

FYI: Cope & Paste 6/7/14: Reshma Kcpadia
Regards,
Ted
It has been a confusing year for bond investors. The one thing everyone agreed on—that bond prices would fall as investors moved into stocks—turned out to be not, in fact, what happened. Concerns about China's economic slowdown, and the strength of the U.S. recovery, along with geopolitical tension between Russia and Ukraine, have caused investors to flock to the security of U.S. government bonds.
But Michael Hasenstab, who oversees $185 billion as chief investment officer for Franklin Templeton's global bond team, isn't much for knee-jerk security. In the funds he helps run—including the $71 billion Templeton Global Bond (ticker: TPINX), focused on sovereign debt; the $8.6 billion Templeton Global Total Return (TGTRX), which can invest in all kinds of bonds; and the $1 billion closed-end Templeton Global Income Common (GIM)—he has eschewed U.S. government debt for five years.
Hasenstab, 40, has been part of Templeton's bond team since 1995 (except for a short break to finish his doctorate and dissertation on China's financial markets at Australian National University), and took the helm at Global Bond in 2001. He's a true contrarian, buying bonds that most investors are fleeing. Case in point: Hasenstab has become one of the largest holders of Ukraine's debt, though it makes up less than 5% of Templeton's global bond funds' assets.
"Slivers of [China's] banking system are toxic...but it's unlikely we'll see a systemic collapse." -- Michael Hasenstab Photo: Jordan Hollender for Barron's
Over the past decade, Global Bond has returned an average of 9% a year, topping Morningstar's world bond category. But this year has been trickier, and the fund is at the bottom of its category. Hasenstab expects bond-market volatility to rise as central-bank policies around the world part ways after years of being largely in sync. Just this week, the European Central Bank moved into new territory, pushing interest rates below zero to ward off ultralow inflation and protect its fragile economy. That runs counter to the Federal Reserve, which has been winding down its bond-buying, and is expected to raise rates next year. The emerging markets, too, face widely disparate growth prospects—and policies.
Despite all this, Hasenstab warns against being too cautious, saying that bond investors need to invest globally, especially as rates rise over the long term. But he picks his spots carefully—in terms of geography and type of investment. Barron's caught up with Hasenstab by phone at his San Mateo, Calif., office, in between overseas trips.
Barron's: What is the outlook for the bond market?
Hasenstab: We are not expecting a blowup, but yields will rise as the Fed stops buying bonds. Higher yields are also more consistent with economic growth of 3% and inflation of 2% over the medium term. That means core U.S. bond yields will produce negative returns. That's why it's necessary to go global, and be unconstrained by a benchmark.
Where are the biggest opportunities?
Asia outside Japan looks reasonably strong, including Malaysia and Korea. In Europe, Poland and Hungary are benefiting from improving German exports [for which they provide services]. Credit has remained favorable, given their low levels of debt and stronger growth rates, and many have higher short-term rates and undervalued currencies.
What does the European Central Bank's interest-rate cut last week mean for the bond market?
It's in line with our view that global liquidity will remain abundant as the ECB and Bank of Japan continue to print money, even as the Fed tapers. As a result, periodic panic in markets surrounding Fed policy is overstated.
Global Total Return invests in more than sovereign debt. What else do you own in that fund?
With default rates low, companies refinancing, and U.S. growth improving, high-yield U.S. corporate debt is in the sweet spot. It's not as cheap as a couple years ago, but you can get a higher yield, and fundamentals are still good.
Where is the biggest disconnect between your view on the ground and what the market expects?
China. There is an investment slowdown, but it's part of an intentional reform agenda by the government. What's not being talked about is the good investment China is making as it moves tens of millions [of people] from rural areas to cities, requiring large investments in subways, schools, and sewage systems. Investment will be half of what it was in the past, but better quality. That, plus increased consumption, paint a reasonable picture for China's economy. But the market is looking at economic indicators like industrial-production data that have been falling.
China's banking system also worries some investors, especially its "shadow banks," which provide financing outside the regular system, with limited oversight.
Slivers of the banking system are toxic. We'll see some headlines that aren't great, but it's unlikely we'll see a systemic collapse of the Chinese banking system. Some of the wealth-management products that are speculative and unregulated were ill-conceived and should probably go bust. Bigger banks should absorb some third-tier banks.
That all sounds pretty bad.
Shadow banking is small, compared with the whole system. For example, the Bank for International Settlements [a clearinghouse for central banks] estimated shadow banking to be 5% of gross domestic product, compared with 150% in the European Union. China has $4 trillion in reserves and is growing at 7%. They can absorb nonperforming loans. It's when your economy is not growing that you run into problems.
How sustainable is that 7% growth?
It's attainable in the next one to two years because of the Chinese consumer—they are earning more and spending more. Wage costs have been on a double-digit growth path. Bike, car, and TV sales have gone up, and that spending anchors economic growth. Of that 7% economic growth, five percentage points could come from consumption.

Our rankings have it pretty low as well the past year.
But longer term, eye-watering and Matthews is a good shop.
This past quarter though, MAPIX is on a tear. Here's M* plot:

Believe M* was concerned about departure of co-manager, but the fund still rates a silver and positive marks for all five pillars.
Hard to find any fault with MAPIX, which I believe is closed.
Congrats on this holding Crash!

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://online.barrons.com/news/articles/SB50001424053111904651304579608873579657340#printMode
M* Snapshot Of TOLLX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/tollx/f?t=tollx
Lipper Snapshot Of TOLLX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/tollx
Fund In Ranked # 29 In The (WS) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/world-stock/dws-rreef-global-infrastructure-fund/tollx
DWS Website: https://www.dws-investments.com/EN/products/dws-rreef-global-infrastructure.jsp?fund-key=4754

Checking Accounts
Checking accounts often offer the least bang for your buck.
At the end of March, depositors held $1.1 trillion in checking accounts that paid no interest, up 17% from a year earlier, according to Moebs. Yields also are declining on many checking accounts that do pay interest.
In addition, depositors are paying higher fees on checking accounts. This year, 41% of financial institutions, including banks and credit unions, don't offer free checking without imposing conditions, the highest proportion since 2002, according to a Moebs survey.
Many institutions charge monthly service fees, which typically range from $3 to $15 and can quickly eat into any interest on the account.
But there are some banks that offer checking accounts that pay relatively high yields and don't charge a monthly fee.
As with savings accounts, consider looking online. First National Bank of Omaha, in Nebraska, has an online unit, fnbodirect.com, that pays 0.65% annually on its checking account on balances up to $1 million. This is among the highest-yielding checking accounts available nationwide that doesn't charge a monthly fee or require savers to meet restrictive conditions, according to DepositAccounts.com.
Ally Bank, a unit of Detroit-based Ally Financial, ALLY +0.38% offers 0.60% if you maintain a balance of at least $15,000. There is no monthly fee.
Even checking accounts that carry no monthly service fee can cost a bundle in other charges, such as for overdrawing or withdrawing funds from automated teller machines outside the bank's network. Most institutions include a list of checking-account fees on their sites.
Many community banks and credit unions offer higher-yielding checking accounts, but they often come with catches. Account holders may need to arrange for a regular direct deposit of funds or use a debit card linked to an account a certain number of times each month.
In most cases, consumers also must live or work in the area the institution serves.
For example, Lake Michigan Credit Union, based in Grand Rapids, Mich., offers one of the highest-yielding checking accounts in the country, at 3% on up to $15,000. But the yield is only available to members, who generally must live, work, study or worship in Michigan's Lower Peninsula, and their families. People who don't meet the criteria can become members if they donate to a local charity.
Certificates of Deposit
Banks are trying to make certificates of deposit a better deal. They aren't always succeeding.
Traditional CDs have rigid terms, paying a fixed yield to depositors who agree to lock up their money for a certain term, and charging for early withdrawal.
The problem is that fewer depositors are willing to strike that deal with interest rates at historic lows, for fear the Federal Reserve could push rates higher and leave them stuck with the lower yield, says Mr. Geller of Market Rates Insight.
Longer-term CDs in particular have fallen out of favor, he says. The amount of money socked away in CDs with maturities of more than three years fell to $157 billion by the end of March, down 8% from a year prior, according to Market Rates Insight.
Some banks are offering CDs with yields that can change before maturity. Ally Bank and CIT Bank, for example, offer CDs with yields that rise if the banks start offering a higher interest rate.
Such deals may sound appealing, but savers should be cautious. If a bank doesn't increase its interest rate, or if the interest-rate index an account is pegged to doesn't rise, savers are stuck. If interest rates decline, however, the yield won't.
In some cases, you can get more favorable terms with a traditional CD.
Minneapolis-based U.S. Bancorp, USB +0.92% for example, pays 0.40% on a 30-month CD whose yield can rise before maturity. But savers can earn more with a one-year plain-vanilla CD from GE Capital Bank, another GE unit, which pays 1.10%, a two-year CD from Salem Five Direct that pays 1.25% or a three-year CD that pays 1.45% from SLM Corp. SLM +1.02% , the Newark, Del.-based student lender known as Sallie Mae, which also offers bank accounts.
You also could get a better deal from a traditional long-term CD that charges a relatively low penalty for early withdrawal, says Richard Barrington, senior financial analyst at MoneyRates.com, which compares bank-account terms.
Consider this example: A saver who deposited $100,000 into a one-year CD with a 1.1% yield—the highest available nationally for deposits of that size, according to DepositAccounts.com—would collect $1,100 in interest at maturity. Both Synchrony Bank and EverBank offer that yield.
By comparison, CIT Bank and Synchrony Bank offer five-year CDs with 2.3% annual yields. If you deposited $100,000 into Synchrony's CD and kept it there for 13 months before withdrawing the money, you would collect $1,156 in interest, even after paying a penalty of six months' interest.
Prepaid Cards
Many consumers associate prepaid cards with spending. But they also can help you earn more money on your cash, if you have the time to find a good deal and use the cards wisely.
Prepaid cards offer consumers the convenience of loading funds onto a card that they later can use to get cash from an ATM or to pay for goods at a store.
Several prepaid cards also come with a perk: Cardholders can earn upwards of 5% on cash stored on the cards.
For example, Mango Financial, a prepaid-card issuer and subsidiary of Rêv Worldwide, based in Austin, Texas, offers a 6% yield to cardholders on up to $5,000. Prepaid cards provided by NetSpend, a unit of Total System Services, TSS +1.17% a card-processing company based in Columbus, Ga., can be linked to savings accounts that pay 5% on balances up to the same limit.
These companies aren't banks, but funds loaded onto the cards are covered by FDIC insurance, like most regular bank accounts.
Use caution: Many prepaid cards charge monthly service fees, which typically range from $5 to $10 a month and which can quickly erode the benefit of higher interest payments.
But it is possible to avoid fees in some cases, which can make the yields on prepaid cards appealing, says Odysseas Papadimitriou, chief executive at WalletHub.com, a bank-account comparison site.
NetSpend offers one prepaid card that has no monthly fee but charges cardholders for most transactions. However, cardholders can avoid the fee by not shopping with the card.
In most cases, cardholders must pay a separate fee to access the funds through an ATM, often at least $2 to $2.50 per withdrawal.
Some firms also impose other conditions. Mango Financial, for example, requires a direct deposit into the savings account each month or the yield drops to 2%. The company also charges $3 a month, which can't be waived.
Still, the deals can be worthwhile. Assuming one ATM fee to withdraw the entire amount, account holders who add $500 to their card each month for 10 months and don't spend it can collect $106.07 in interest on a Mango account.
By contrast, the interest on that same amount held in a savings account yielding the average 0.08% would be $1.84.

NAESX Vang. sm-cap index.
AUM = $46.7 BILLION. Stocks held = 1,451. "Other" holdings = 14. Just 1.37% of the money is held in its top 5 positions. Talk about spread-out! But with $46.7B, I suppose it would be like steering an aircraft carrier with a rudder meant for a 2-stroke diesel fishing scow.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/get-the-same-stock-market-returns-with-half-the-risk-2014-06-06?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Since 1985, some 80% (edit: make that 75%) of my total returns have come from bond funds, primarily junk related. But the key was when I had a smaller account, the returns came from sector funds ala tech/telecom/health in the roaring 90s and to a lesser extent stock index futures before that. I'm at the point now financially where I doubt I will ever again buy individual stocks or even an equity mutual fund. Boring maybe but I don't need any meaningful drawdown in my nest egg at this stage in my life.

Junkster,
Congratulations and I am thrilled to see you posting!
Mona

Coming from a relatively new member here. I enjoy the comments of most of the posters. Even if the post is long, I still look forward to any tidbits of knowledge. The personal attacks are the big turnoff. Old_Joe mentions the alpha male concept and he is spot on. Every forum has a few.
My process on the links of one member here is that out of the 30 or so he puts up there are only about 3-5 that I pick to read. Usually have of those are disappointments. They are more of a tabloid than educational.
I hope some of the old timers come back. I miss the info they provided.

Small caps move into the green for 2014
Jun 6 2014, 15:03 ET Seeking Alpha
This just in: Continuing to bounce from a tough 10-week stretch which saw the index lose about 10% of its value from the start of March, the Russell 2000 (IWM +0.9%) has turned positive for the year.
The small cap index, however, continues to trail the S&P 500 which is ahead 5.7% YTD, as well as the Nasdaq, which is up 3.4%.
Besides some off beat Alt funds(bear market/inverse) ,M* shows only Small Growth and China Funds with negative average returns Y T D.
http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://online.wsj.com/articles/stocks-gain-after-jobs-data-1402056936#printMode
Markets At A Glance: http://markets.wsj.com/us