Hi Gary,
Simplification is usually beneficial, but over-simplification can be financially hazardous. I believe an investor needs to know as much as possible when assessing financial matters. Constant learning is essential to improve investing outcomes.
Hiring a fund manager or a team of managers does not relieve you of your portfolio management duties. It is just one step in the process. Yes, buying a mutual fund or ETF does transfer some of the investment tasks to the fund manager, but not all of them. You’re still the most important cog in the investment decision wheel.
So continue educating yourself on financial matters or risk ruin from the many professionals who will gladly exploit your blind spots. These guys are experts at filling their pockets while providing services that either fill or empty your pockets. As you correctly emphasized, fees are a persistent annual portfolio drain regardless of market outcomes.
There are simple strategies to substantially decrease this reward drain. Warren Buffett observed that “Beware of little expenses; a small leak will sink a great ship”.
Yale institutional investment genius David Swensen authored his “Unconventional Success” book in 2005. He likes to say that both amateur and professional investors only have 3 tools to work their magic: asset allocation, market timing, and security selection.
By hiring a fund manager, you transfer 2 of these 3 tools to his responsibility: the specific security choices and some of the market timing aspects. However, you fully retain the asset allocation responsibilities. David Swensen concludes that the asset allocation function contributes at least 80 % to the overall returns profile whereas the other two functions each only add 10 % to the returns picture.
Here is a Link to a recent Swensen lecture that he delivered as a guest on Robert Shiller’s economics and finance series:

In his book, Swensen said: “Poor asset allocation, ill-considered active management, and perverse market timing lead the list of errors made by individual investors.” Remember, you are still responsible for at least the asset allocation decisions.
Costs always matter and individual investors are always exposed to potentially escalading investment charges, some obvious and some hidden.
The private investor and his portfolio suffer from a triple whammy in this regard that is a heavy burden to overcome. The triple whammy for the individual investor is: (1) the fund and advisor fees, (2) the average underperformance of active fund managers to just match passive Index outcomes, and (3) the poor exit/entry timing of the investor himself.
All three factors are frictional drags that substantially reduce the private investors annual returns to approximately one-third of overall market returns. Countless academic and industry studies document this dismal shortfall.
The simple strategy to substantially attenuate this wealth robbing burden is to eliminate the second tier of advisor fees, to invest in low cost mutual fund and ETF products like Index funds, to avoid frequent trading that is tied to short term market timing, and to be alert to behavioral biases like overconfidence and herding that encourage faulty market decisions.
The MFO membership is dominated by folks who own mutual funds and ETFs. As a group, we recognize and reserve the asset allocation and the long-term entry/exit decisions for ourselves. To execute this task with some success, each of us continually upgrades our knowledge base by learning and with experience. I suggest that you will enhance your portfolio’s growth prospects by also adopting this learning pattern.
Thank you for your participation in this exchange and thanks for the Link.
Best Wishes.

Agree with cman...watching for weekly confirmation of higher lows (continued upward trend). I will be stopped out if GDX crosses $25 which is 10% below its most recent rolling high ($27.73). Hoping this is a period of consolidation rather than a trend reversal. GDX is still very much out of synch with the rest of the equity market.
How I would interpret GDX YTD ? - Higher lows with periods of consolidation:

related - gold miner etf
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/gold-mining-etf-investing-101-etf-news-and-commentary-cm336251

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.thestreet.com/print/story/12534206.html

Typically by the time articles like this come out, the asset class has topped at least in the short term.
GDX had a nice run since mid Jan bouncing off of 20 SMA all the way up (@bee this is the smoothed technical version of your higher and higher lows) but technically trend broken at the moment with about 5% pullback likely in the short term from where it is.
In the long term, it is impossible to predict anything related to Gold, it is best used as momentum play.

David, your commentary this month included some outstanding discussion of M* sometimes bizarre and often inconsistent fund category decisions. I was struck by the later discussion of RSIVX, which M* considers a Multisector Bond fund, but which is run very similarly to OSTIX, which used to be in the Multisector Bond fund, but was moved to the High Yield fund category not long ago. But RSIVX remains in the Multisector category. When you read or listen to the managers of these two funds, they are managing their funds with very similar goals and with not-dissimilar tactics and holdings. Conversely, RSIVX, whose name includes Strategic Income, is not at all similar to GSZIX, BSIIX, LSBDX, and other Multisector bond funds.
This is important to know for a couple of reasonx, one of which is to point out M*'s continued inconsistency and apparent inability to evaluate similar funds using the same process, let alone consider what the managers are actually doing and what the fund prospectuses say. The other reason is to stress to investors to put M* star ratings and analyst ratings near the bottom of considerations when they make decisions on selecting funds. It is important for investors to actually read the fund prospectus, yes, read it! That is the only way, for example, that you will discover that John Osterweis pegs the performance of OSTFX to the S&P 500, NOT to the arbitrary benchmark and 'best-fit' index M* uses, even though M*'s own data indicates otherwise.
For better or worse, M* is THE source for fund data. But relying on M* for categorization, comparable indexes, and similar items, without reading fund prospectuses and annual reports, can lead to frustration and misplaced expectations. David's excellent March commentary is required reading.

bee: you should add erbb to your picture. earlier in the thread, there was talk of marijane stocks. i got all excited and bought a few. three days later, my measly amount in erbb was up 40% and i sold half. yesterday it was up another 17%. it's the wild west out there, with prices being driven by nothing but hot air and puffery. at the same time, especially when using money you can afford to lose and probably will lose, it's vastly entertaining to sit in front of your laptop with a 15-minute chart on the screen and watch these things go up 80%, then drop to 0%, then rise to 20% or whatever, all in a matter of hours. talk about volatility! kooky!

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20140318/FREE/140319901?template=printart
Relink Of Yesterday's M* Article: http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=639535

My re-read of Wilmatt's original post shows he's currently invested 35%/40%/25% (Equities, Bonds, Cash respectively). I pass no judgement on the appropriateness of that mix. But, any notion that he is "doing nothing" is incorrect.
Here's what even very conservative investments might reasonably be expected to return in one year's time on his stated $1.1 million. (Does not include gains/loss due to changes in NAV).
TRBUX (ultra-short bond) current yield .28% ..............$3,080
PRWBX (short term bond) current yield 1.49% ..........$16,390
PRFHX (high yield municipal) current yield 4.32%).....$47,520

Thanks for the input, Hank. Yes, having $750,000 in the stock market is certainly "doing something." lol

My re-read of Wilmatt's original post shows he's currently invested 35%/40%/25% (Equities, Bonds, Cash respectively). I pass no judgement on the appropriateness of that mix. But, any notion that he is "doing nothing" is incorrect.
Here's what even very conservative investments might reasonably be expected to return in one year's time on his stated $1.1 million. (Does not include gains/loss due to changes in NAV).
TRBUX (ultra-short bond) current yield .28% ..............$3,080
PRWBX (short term bond) current yield 1.49% ..........$16,390
PRFHX (high yield municipal) current yield 4.32%).....$47,520

Plenty of Infrastructure Opps and Roadblocks!
All items from today @ Seeking Alpha
Keystone foes now gunning for Dominion's Cove Point LNG export project
Green groups call on Pres. Obama to reject pending applications to build liquefied natural gas export terminals, and "as a good-faith test case," Obama should force the FERC to conduct a broad environmental impact assessment of Dominion Resources’ (D) proposed Cove Point LNG export facility in Maryland.
The energy required to liquefy and ship gas at Cove Point would raise the fuel’s greenhouse gas emissions to the level of coal, activists say, threatening the climate like pipelines tied to developing oil sands in Alberta, such as Keystone XL.
The Energy Department already has conditionally approved Dominion to export up to 770M cf/day of natural gas to countries that don’t have free-trade agreements with the U.S., but the FERC still must review the company's plans to revamp its decades-old natural gas receiving terminal so it can instead liquefy the gas and load it onto tankers bound for Japan and India.
FERC so far is on track to require only a smaller environmental assessment of the planned $3.8B export project.
Enterprise Products to start Seaway pipeline expansion as early as May
Enterprise Products Partners (EPD) says it plans to start its Seaway pipeline expansion as early as May, more than doubling the system’s capacity to move oil from the delivery point for West Texas crude in Cushing, Okla., to Gulf coast refineries.
EPD, which operates Seaway and co-owns it with Enbridge (ENB), had said it would start late in Q2.
EPD is looping the existing line with a parallel pipeline that will increase capacity to the Houston area to 850K bbl/day; EPD and ENB reversed the pipeline in May 2012 and expanded it to the current capacity of 400K bbl/day in Jan. 2013.
A further loosening of the crude storage bottleneck at Cushing as the Seaway expansion is brought online could push WTI prices closer to Brent prices.

CBI
CB&I +4.5% after gaining three new contracts totaling $6B-plus
CB&I (CBI +4.5%) shoots higher after receiving a $6B engineering and construction contract on the planned Cameron LNG export facility in Louisiana, a $625M deal from Bechtel for work on Chevron’s (CVX) Wheatstone liquefied natural gas project in Western Australia, and a $100M pipe fabrication contract from Enterprise Products Partners (EPD) for a propane project in Texas.
Cowen analysts view CBI as their top pick among E&C companies to benefit from the buildout in global petrochemicals and liquefied natural gas, initiating coverage on CBI with an Outperform rating and $98 price target due to its earnings growth and operating stability, exposure to diversified end markets, best in class margins and strong technical operating groups.
Exxon Mobil reportedly plans $20B power project in Vietnam
Exxon Mobil (XOM) is preparing to invest ~$20B in a gas-fired power complex with Vietnam's state oil and gas group Petrovietnam, according to local media.
The project would involve construction of two power plants with a combined capacity of 6K-6.5K MW, in a deal which could make the U.S. one of the top four foreign investors in Vietnam along with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, according to the report.
Companies that actually engineer/build the infrastructure seldom are found in most infrastructure funds,For example;
http://etfdb.com/stock/CBI/
or
http://etfdb.com/etf/FLM/#holdings
InfrastructureMutual Funds
GLFOX
http://www.lazardnet.com/us/docs/sp2/461/LazardGlobalListedInfrastructurePortfolio_FactSheet_2013Q4.pdf
MTIPX
http://www.morganstanley.com/msamg/msimintl/docs/en_US/publications/factsheets/MSF/global_infrastructure.pdf

Thanks Ted. I will check with my broker to see if I can access to this fund.
My best YTD are GEVA (56%) and AEGN up 62%. For funds, PRHSX up 12% and RRRAX (10%).

For me, "infrastructure" is hard, productive assets (rail, power, pipeline, airports, etc etc) that are often (at least to some degree) necessary and offer relatively stable/consistent cash flow. It's not "sexy" or a fad (I don't have to ask whether these companies will still be popular in a year or three.) It often fulfills a need and usually provides a nice dividend.
Might "infrastructure" and all of its subsections be "hot and cold" in the short term in terms of investment? Possibly, but I just don't see it as a "buzzword" (in the way that one would consider 3d printing or social media as "buzzwords") - these are anything but sexy investments and I think there's an appeal to their long-term need and relative consistency over time. Lastly, the other appeal is that some infrastructure is dominated by a relatively small handful of companies - the biggest example of this is, of course, the railroads.
Do you need 50 infrastructure funds? No. Do they have a place - possibly as a new variation on the "utility" subcategory? I think they do.
In terms of companies that are called upon to BUILD the infrastructure, those are something else and would probably be even a better play if this country devoted actual effort to improving its infrastructure. But that's a different thread.

@DavidMMP: FYI:
Regards,
Ted
Name
Front
Load
Deferred
Load
Expense
Ratio
Min. Init. Purchase
12b-1
Actual
Purchase
Constraint
Shareclass
Attributes
Purchase Constraint: Institutional - T, Qualified Access - A, Closed to New/All Investments - C/L.
Shareclass Attributes: Available for 529 Only - N, Indirect Use Only - U.
ALPS|Red Rocks Listed Private Equity A 5.50 — 1.51 2,500 0.25 — —
ALPS|Red Rocks Listed Private Equity C — 1.00 2.25 2,500 0.75 — —
ALPS|Red Rocks Listed Private Equity I — — 1.25 1,000,000 0.00 T —
ALPS|Red Rocks Listed Private Equity R — — 1.75 0 0.50 A —
Brokerage Availability LPEFX
CommonWealth PPS MSWM Brokerage
CommonWealth Universe Pershing FundCenter
DailyAccess Corporation FRIAG Pershing FundVest NTF
DailyAccess Corporation MATC Raymond James
DailyAccess Corporation Matrix Raymond James WRAP Eligible
DailyAccess Corporation Mid-Atlantic RBC Wealth Management-Network Eligible
DailyAccess Corporation RTC Schwab All (Retail, Instl, Retirement)
Fidelity Institutional FundsNetwork Schwab OneSource & NTF (No Load & No Transaction Fee)
Fidelity Institutional FundsNetwork-NTF Scottrade Load
Fidelity Retail FundsNetwork Shareholders Services Group
JP MORGAN LOAD TD Ameritrade Institutional NTF
JP MORGAN LOAD-WAIVED NTF TD Ameritrade Retail
JP MORGAN NTF TD Ameritrade Trust Company
JPMorgan Thrivent – Advisory Eligible
LPL SAM Eligible TIAA-CREF Brokerage Services
Merrill Edge TIAA-CREF NTF
Merrill Lynch Trade PMR NTF
Met Life Resources MFSP Alliance List Trust Company of America
Mid Atlantic Capital Corp WFA MFQ Screen Updated 12/31/13
We value your feedback. Let us know what you think.

gk3105gklm: Talk to me on the last trading session of 2014, and we'll see who has the best returns.
Regards,
Ted

All of this is well and good to know but as an observer I don't have to know all of this - but I would hope my educated fund managers have a vast knowledge of this and can analyze and react in a profitable way. This is what I know. - Most of us are paying a little over 1% management fee. On a $ 420,000 fund that's about $ 350 a month management fee. You never gat a bill from the fund company. I an more interested in the bottom line.
Reference source: Da FOOL
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/17/fees.aspx?source=ifesitlnk0000001&lidx=4
Gary

I am invested for the longer term ... and, with this, I have listed below my top five funds along with their five year returns. They are as follows: HWAAX (32.48%) ... LPEFX (30.95%) ... FDSAX (28.47%) ... VADAX (26.59% and IIVAX (26.56%). Over this period my conserative portfolio with a target asset allocation of 20% cash, 25% income, 45% equity and 10% alternatives has had an annual averaged return of 17.44%.
Year-to-date my top five funds are as follows: FRINX (4.77%) ... JCRAX (4.55%) ... THOAX (4.36%) ... TOLLX (4.17%) and PGBAX (3.16%).

FBIOX-17.49%
DMCRX-11.73%
ETGLX-10.07%
FOCPX6.75%
GASFX-6.42%

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000258629&play=1

Hi Hank,
Thank you for your thoughtful and thought provoking reply. I certainly welcome it.
Indeed it is a challenging and perhaps foolish chore to catch a falling knife. It is the ultimate loser’s game to step in-front of a runaway train anticipating that it will stop and reverse direction. I’m not brave enough (very limited boldness) to attempt either task and prefer to wait until the knife hits the floor and the train reverses itself.
Although it is never absolutely predictable, if an investing dark sky will continue darkening or reverse itself, the markets do yield some imperfect and imprecise signals. Interpreting these signals is surely still more an art form than a science, but many professional investors assemble a host of these indicators when forming their judgments.
A few of these indicators include the following items: a history review that identifies the frequency, the depth, and the time scale of market gyrations, assorted consumer confidence measures, the US leading economic indicator (LEI), the ISM purchasing managers index, some builder surveys, bond spreads, the US dollar index, market volume statistics, the trending of the advance-decline line, and a crystal ball. Every investor has the freedom to choose his own rules when, if ever, to catch a falling knife.
A contrarians path is never easy; it demands great patience and persistence; it is a lonely road. It often devolves into many more investment losses in the hope of a few huge winners. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, of Black Swan fame, drove his employees nuts with his investment style. He knew that most of his investments would fail, but patiently waited for the Big Score. His employees felt like it was the equivalent to bleeding from a thousand small cuts. I suspect that Taleb’s Big Score came from his book royalties.
I tell the Taleb story because of your statement that a risk-seeking investor wants a 51 % success score. That’s not necessarily so.
As we all know, a payoff is not simply the likelihood of winning; the payoff odds are part of the success equation. The operative equation in terms of an investment decision is an expectation of positive net returns. The sum of the positive expected payoffs (probability of success times payout) must exceed the sum of the negative expected payoffs (probability of failure times losses incurred) to justify an investment.
As Taleb recognized, advocated, and practiced, a few huge winnings could overwhelm many limited losses. I’ll emphasize that that is Taleb’s philosophy and style; it is not mine.
Once again, thank you for contributing your opinion on this subject. All such submittals add to the wisdom of the MFO crowd.
Best Wishes.