Hi Guys,
I don't have much to contribute to this current exchange because I have not devoted much time or thought to UBI (Universal Basic Income). I perceived it as an idea well ahead of its time for anything approaching adoption in one of its many potential formats. It has had and will continue to have a challenging uphill climb. It was recently convincingly defeated in a Swiss referendum. Here is a Link that reports on the Swiss vote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/world/europe/switzerland-swiss-vote-basic-income.html
One of its early and persistent advocates is prolific author Charles Murray. I was most impressed with his coauthored book "The Bell Curve". He developes his arguments with great care and much data. Here is a Link to a recent article by him that was published in the WSJ.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586
It's a rather lengthy article but a worthwhile examination of the pros and cons of the UBI controversy. All UBI plans are complex. That must be so when redistributing national wealth. The issue is so complex that any implementations of UBI are likely to be in the distant future. I choose to not invest much time examining the many options since they will most assuredly and dramatically change with compromise a key element. Enjoy.
Best Wishes.

Dan:
We are probably in agreement as to 'diminished work options' for the current college-age kids. And that is govt-policy driven, by the pols who serve the Establishment/Elite/Aristocracy of this country. Hillary, Bush 41, Obama, Bill Clinton, and Bush 43 served the interests of the American Aristocracy quite well. The dismantling of the American Middle Class was not by accident, it was by design.
But I am talking about spending, not income. -- Its been my life’s observation that most Americans tend to spend up to their income, or overspend, regardless of their income (unless they make obscene amounts of money). There is a desire among the majority of our people, no doubt fostered by corporate-marketing types, to consume today, at the expense of putting away money for a rainy day – even if one must borrow to do so. Parents splurge on their kids, husbands splurge on their wives, most everyone insists on “keeping up with the Joneses”. Bigger houses, bigger cars, more & endless indulgences. “Enough” is never enough. The financial impact of decisions is ignored – especially if such an analysis might cause one to defer immediate gratification.
So of course (maybe), the ‘median’ household has little savings. That is what happens when you choose to spend, borrow to spend, and choose not to save -- and make those choices so frequently that having little/no savings becomes who you are.
David:
As for UBI, I recently heard an interesting saying that applies: “Politicians who chose to take from Peter in order to pay Paul, can ALWAYS count on the vote of Paul.”

On the Matthews-Seafarer question, the chart shows MAPIX (AF's old fund) still outpointing SFGIX* since SFGIX's inception, +41.8% to +30.5%.
Yes, they're different animals, but generally I've thought Foster appears to be good manager who's made a mistake with his long-running underweight to Asia (and at one point, before I stopped following the fund closely, some not-so-hot security selection in Latin America). The Asia underweight may seem slight, but over time, it's had to have some effect.
Just another view ...
* If the chart shows only Seafarer, as I think a direct link sometimes does, just add MAPIX to the chart to see the pattern.

Yeah, what to do with the supposedly (usually mythical) undeserving, when life is still claimed to be Aesop-like.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/return-of-the-undeserving-poor/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/opinion/krugman-the-undeserving-rich.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/opinion/krugman-the-war-over-poverty.html
Let us count the ways things would improve nationally with UBI, for starters.

MJG: “The failure that I perceive is not a national failure. It is the failure of the individual and/or the individual family unit…. The problem would quickly desolve if we just practiced the saving discipline that many of us displayed until roughly the early 1980s. We seemed to toss frugality to the wind in that era and have never recovered from that reckless joyride”
Response:
I wholly endorse those comments. Granted, secular & policy trends have stagnated incomes. Chief among these in my opinion: “Trade Uber Alles” trade policies, open borders and (legalized-) corruption/bribery of the political class.. Mass automation will be another headwind.

I agree with that to a degree - trade policies. However, if an individual does not have options then it is not wholly their responsibility. Also, much of this 'individual responsibility' disparity is due to the base comparison - the working generation that came from about 1942 - 1980 (lets not get too hung up on the exact dates). As mentioned here current workers do not have the work/pay/benefits opportunities that past workers did.

OT but related to Seafarer. How many people are trading or have in the past moved out some or all of Matthews Asia Growth and Income to Seafarer G&I? I currently have 1/3 Seafarer and 2/3 Matthews and wonder if making a move now (to 2/3 Seafarer or more) is to late? The Foster/Horrocks combo are my only dedicated EM positions.

Hey folks. Was hoping to get some advice. As you know, Seafarer is closing as of the end of the month. I have a position in the fund at Schwab. Unfortunately, Schwab tells me that they are currently in negotiations with Seafarer in regards to whether they will continue to sell the fund to existing shareholders. At this point, it is unclear whether they will do so. I want to continue to be able to add to this fund. I'm wondering if others have run into this issue and if you have any suggestions on what to do. thanks.

I have some information from a very reliable source at Seafarer. Per the prospectus they believe the fund will remain available for purchase at Schwab by existing shareholders after today. Contrary to what Schwab told MikeW, Seafarer has no on going negotiations with Schwab, nor are there any new agreements pending with Schwab.
The only new aspect to Seafarer’s relationship with Schwab is that they recently requested that Schwab “soft close" the Fund according to the principles outlined in the Fund’s prospectus (as revised 8/31/16, and available at www.seafarerfunds.com/prospectus). Seafarer has worked with Schwab to implement the soft closure accordingly, and to the best of their knowledge, Schwab has agreed to comply with the intent of the prospectus.
With all the above in mind, Seafarer said that every broker, dealer or platform may enact the soft closure differently, typically because of varying internal policies and technological limitations. Consequently, Schwab’s actual implementation of the soft closure is subject to some uncertainty. While Seafarer does not anticipate any material difficulties for Fund shareholders that custody with Schwab, they can not be certain that some shareholders will not encounter temporary frustrations, or even permanent restrictions. Seafarer will work with Schwab and other platforms to alleviate such problems and they can only ensure the soft closure will be implemented as intended for “direct” shareholders.
My take on all of this is that if Schwab does not sell the fund to existing shareholders after today, the reason(s) for this rest with Schwab and not Seafarer.
Mona

MJG: “The failure that I perceive is not a national failure. It is the failure of the individual and/or the individual family unit…. The problem would quickly desolve if we just practiced the saving discipline that many of us displayed until roughly the early 1980s. We seemed to toss frugality to the wind in that era and have never recovered from that reckless joyride”
Response:
I wholly endorse those comments. Granted, secular & policy trends have stagnated incomes. Chief among these in my opinion: “Trade Uber Alles” trade policies, open borders and (legalized-) corruption/bribery of the political class.. Mass automation will be another headwind.
That said, individuals are “captains” of their own lives. Pursuing worthless degree programs on borrowed money, marrying too soon (or too often !)– or choosing a poor life-partner, or having kids outside of the traditional two-parent household – these are often costly, life-effecting decisions. Succumbing to relentless distractions from real life -- of which spectator sports, the internet & chemical-dependency, are problems too. Choosing not to “pay one’s self first” is another bad decision. These decisions often can costs hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime. -- and 'voila!' there are large chunks of the 'savings gap'.
Successive, contemporary generations seem to increasingly make poor, life-altering decisions, rather than following the “straight and narrow” path common in times past. It really is on each of us to “choose wisely” - or suffer the consequences.
If that “Fool” chart is correct, it amounts to a collective tally of those consequences. It’s the parable of the ant and the grasshopper, writ large.
C’est la vie.

Like I said above, I already have Schwab. I also asked if I can open another account at Schwab. Now that was a bad question.
The reason I have multiple brokerage accounts is to spread my risks. I am a very paranoid person. Imagine if I only had account with Wellstrade.
I have portfolios at Vanguard, Fidelity, Schwab, Merrill and Scottrade at this time. That's why I own close to 50 funds. I guess I could own 40 funds. The point is not to own 50 funds with two accounts at 1 brokerage.
TRP brokerage NTF offerings are scarce and I use it for managing inlaws money so don't want to mix things. I do have IRA at TRP and Scottrade. I could transfer IRA to Schwab.
TradeKing sucks I just found out.
So I have one fund BPRRX at Scottrade that I will lose since it is closed to new investors. Others I could either sell, or maybe some of them include in other portfolios if I really need.
Scottrade was so good to me. Is there any chance Scottrade will stay as a unit of TDA? Or maybe Scottrade brand has better name and TDA will assimilate into Scottrade and the latter's back-end systems (sic) are retained. Freakin' headache!!!

Fidelity Automatic Investment Program lets you schedule periodic purchases.
https://www.fidelity.com/cash-management/automatic-investments
See footnote: "After the initial investment, a $5 fee is charged per automatic investment into a FundsNetwork transaction fee fund."
You have to schedule at least two purchases, but the system allows you to cancel at any time, so you can cancel after you've made one purchase.
https://www.fidelity.com/customer-service/automatic-investments-faqs
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/t/346014.aspx

I have most of my accounts at E*TRADE as a legacy BrownCo customer and have been pretty happy with the collection of NTF funds they have. Customer service seems to be the main issue. For years I dealt with a guy who was great. He got things done, he went to bat for me when I needed or wanted something like making Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets fund available quickly after launch, and he always followed up on questions I had.
More recently it's the opposite and I find customer service much more stressful because not only are more of the answers bad answers for me, which has to be expected sometimes, but I have to chase after them more for answers. Sometimes they've provided answers that seem more like they just want to be done with my question and move on to the next one rather than actually trying to make the customer experience better- even if the answer isn't what I might hope for.

Though I would go elsewhere for TF funds (e.g. Scottrade $17, E*Trade $20, or Fidelity with $5 to add shares to an existing position).

@msf, is your comment about Fido pricing when adding to an existing position their general approach? I can't find that anywhere on their website or in my account documents. I have a small account at Fido and have always avoided TF funds because I mostly like to add to positions over time, but if the $50 fee was just on the first purchase and each additional purchase was only $5 I might reconsider in some cases.

VF - not sure if you're reading this correctly. Years ago, TDA had no NTF funds, plus a high transaction fee; the combo meant I didn't even take a look at them.
But that was years ago. These days, it's got a very respectable stable of NTF funds. Though I would go elsewhere for TF funds (e.g. Scottrade $17, E*Trade $20, or Fidelity with $5 to add shares to an existing position).

DavidV is correct on fees for vanilla TDA accounts. Here's the pricing page; click on Mutual Funds tab: https://www.tdameritrade.com/pricing.page
"Please note: No-transaction fee (NTF) funds (except ProFunds and Rydex) held 180 days or less are subject to a Short-Term Redemption fee, which is a flat fee of $49.99."
I disagree that 180 day holding period is an impediment to a fund investor. In addition, TDA has one of the largest lists of NTF ETFs (30 day holding period).
TDAmeritrade also has special accounts with different terms. For instance, here are my terms (90 day holding period, $25 TF funds):
https://www.tdameritrade.com/retail-en_us/resources/pdf/SDPS1009.pdf

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1444822/000119312516723525/d253834d485apos.htm
AQR Large Cap Relaxed Constraint Equity Fund
AQR Small Cap Relaxed Constraint Equity Fund
AQR International Relaxed Constraint Equity Fund
AQR Emerging Relaxed Constraint Equity Fund

@MJG
You noted:
"The most surprising statistic for me is that the average fund owner only has 3 funds. That's a basic minimum for portfolio diversification. I typically have a fund number that bounces around 10. But I also have a portfolio,size that greatly exceeds the averages presented in the survey report."
>>>Three funds won't kill an investment portfolio, eh?
1. For U.S. exposure (includes foreign earnings of U.S. companies)
---VBINX, 60/40 U.S. equity/bond
---VWINX, 40/60 U.S. equity/bond
2. For international, ex-US
--- no favorites here, but 60/40 or 40/60 would fit the basket. An ex-U.S., balanced holding.
If one chooses to expand beyond these 3, then the portfolio obviously becomes more select and personalized, eh?
You indicate about 10 funds for your portfolio. I may presume this is the number needed to satisfy your consideration for diversification. Cool !
From where ever the statistics have been gathered, as to individual monies held in 401k/403b type investments. Sadly too many folks have pretty crappy choices in these programs. One should consider these folks have chosen the best 3 with which they are comfortable.
Lastly, I don't find that portfolio dollar value necessarily has any overwhelming consideration for one's available choices. I'm not less happy with the long term returns of a VWINX than the neighbor who has a $100,000 account in the same investment.

Ooooh, did MJG just write that the average fund investor held three funds, when the statistic was for the median investor?
Shame, shame, shame :-)
OJ - without checking the ICI data, my guess is that the IBD column was poorly written. All the bullet item data apply only to households owning funds. It is almost certain that this restriction to fund-owning households also applies to the data above the bullet list (such as median balance of $120K).
As you correctly state, if more than half the households own no funds (so their fund balance is $0), then the median of all households must be $0.

From the article:
"The median value of mutual funds owned by U.S. families was $120,000 in 2015."
"Half of all households have fund balances higher than $120,000 and half have lower balances."
See below a chart from that article. It shows that roughly only 45% of US households own any funds.
Now I'm certainly not great at math. But if more than half own nothing at all, then they must be included in that "half have lower balances." If so, that would seem to skew that "median value" well to the low side, suggesting that those on the high side must have balances hugely in excess of $120,000.
If the 55% who own no funds are not included in the "half have lower balances", then I question the entire premise of the article, and it's value for much of anything.

Hi Guys,
I'm a sucker for presentations that are in the heavy weight statistical category. I'm often surprised by the survey numbers. That was again true as I read the referenced mutual fund owner report.
Not much to my surprise, I'm doing quite well on a comparison basis. I am more than comfortable on an absolute basis. I'm not surprised that the so-called GI generation is at the bottom of the curve in terms of mutual fund ownership. That industry was just making a positive market penetration during our meaningful earning and saving decision years.
I was a very lucky and fortunate soul during those years. In a totally random event, I was introduced to Jack Bogle. He is a very convincing advocate and salesman. He won that day and continues to win.
The most surprising statistic for me is that the median fund owner only has 3 funds. That's a basic minimum for portfolio diversification. I typically have a fund number that bounces around 10. But I also have a portfolio,size that greatly exceeds the averages presented in the survey report. I trade infrequently and am very much into cost control. I suspect many MFOers practice the same general policy.
Best Regards.

FYI: Financial advisers should be aware that funds could be doling out large capital gains payouts this year, says Morningstar's Russel Kinnel.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160929/FREE/160929914?template=printart
M*: Russ Kinnel Capital Gains Video & Text:
http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=771131

In the minor details department, might be worth noting that the PRBLX portfolio position in WF is an outlier in the Parnassus funds generally. Aside from PRBLX, the only P. fund that owns WF is PARNX, and it's top 25 but well down the list.
The firm as a whole is traditionally light in banks, putting most of its fairly limited financials stake in asset managers, insurance, credit cards, etc. The only other banks anywhere in the P. stable as of last report are Capital One (PARWX, PARNX) and the small-cap regional First Horizon (PARNX, PARMX).
Given the rest of the P funds' approach, I'd be interested in reading in some detail why Ahlsten went so heavily into WF in the first place. (I imagine WF will be a big topic in the Q3 report that should be coming out in a couple of weeks or so.) I can remember just once (in recent times, anyway) when he did another big leapfrog to a #1 position, and that was with Apple after a selloff, last year I think it was.
P.S. Naturally it's worth factoring into thinking on the subject that P. doesn't do nearly as much "house-view" investing as say Pimco, and that the two Dodson funds are growth funds, not blend like PRBLX and PARMX.