@LLJB. I've successfully gotten over falling in love with ANY fund. So I don't want my shares to be grandfathered. I'm okay selling any fund. My problem is I don't want them charging my hefty commissions.
What about $100 minimum to buy? Schwab started and Scottrade and Etrade followed. Dunno about Ameritrade.

This is a little late to the party, since EM stocks are up about 17% YTD. The way to participate is to have a diversified mix that has an allocation to EM stocks. If you can't stomach the higher volatility, own something like SFGIX or NWFFX that is geared for lower risk. Or don't own any at all, but don't be lured into buying after a big run-up.

@slick Ah, no, actually only about 12% of DBLTX is asset-backed, as of 9/30... about 3X less than carried by GIBIX.

No more Scottrade, it will be folded into TDA.

Following the finalization of the merger, the Scottrade name will be phased out, including at the Scottrade Center arena downtown, home of the National Hockey League's St. Louis Blues. The arena's name will be changed to TD Ameritrade Center

Scottrade employees will be eliminated:

"After the integration, we'll have between 500 and 1,000 jobs in the St. Louis area," Hockey said, adding that Scottrade's 3,700 employees nationwide will total about half that figure following the sale.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/td-ameritrade-buying-rival-brokerage-scottrade-for-billion-stl-will/article_e328c4c0-5525-59f1-ae60-8f603964cd7d.html

I'm holding out for them to roll out the F-8-E class shares. You know, the ones that have no load, no 12(b)-1, cost under .10 ER, and give you 5 extra shares each month as a shareholder bonus. :)

@Sven, yes indeed, most of our nut is there. And now that I have bailed from the Yackts and Parnassus, even more.
I have never owned CAPE on its own. I just track it irregularly, and am always (a little, but decreasingly) surprised to see it outperform all the other ones I like, or used to --- the half-dozen smart secret-sauce LC div / value etfs, e.g. And now SPLV.
@BobC, was not comparing with their benchmarks. SPHD has been superb at shorter times and also overall; I wish I had been in it.
As for ups / downs, just go to M* 10k-growth graphs (put in an mfund to start, like TWEIX or some Vanguard or some other that you favor), and then select time windows of, say, dips that made you jump. Myself, I do not see enough smoothing to matter with SPLV vs CAPE (which for some reason M* refuses to show today, hmm).
But notes from yesterday: over the pothole starting ~9/18/14, SPLV was notably better. The one starting ~8/13/15, pretty much equivalent. And the one starting before last xmas, meh, with SPLV slightly better.
So given the greater bucks I wind up with from holding CAPE, I would take it over SPLV if I had to choose b/w them only. That's all. I learned long ago (partly anyway, he claimed) not to sweat market potholes, or at least to ride them out and not flinch, or not do anything much more than flinch.

In response to BobC's above question.
Below is my best guess, thoughts and comments.
Not speaking for American Funds but from the perspective of one of their mutual fund investors I am thinking it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to move to only a one share class fund firm due to, the no doubt, many revenue sharing agreements they have in place with the many other financial firms they have developed relationships with through the years. Thus the large number of fund share classes necessary to serve this large and broad base of investors that they now serve through many venues.
I am an A fund share holder that paid a one time front load commission (through the years) and, with this, I received nva exchange prividledges among their A share funds without having to pay another sales charge. These sales charges, from my memory, ranged form 3.5% to 5.75% depending on the fund I was buying without applying other discounts. I'm thinking the brokerage wrap accounts that many firms have moved to that have on going fees associated with these type accounts and that I have the better deal. I have seen annual wrap fee schedules of better than 1.5% for some wrap accounts with most being around the 1.0% range and a few back of that.
I have owned some American Funds for better than thiry years with some funds that I now own were owned for years by my parents before being passed to me through gift and inheritance transfers. When you consider the number of years these funds have been owned the sales load spread over the years owned is very small. Now an on going annual account wrap and/or advisor retainer fee paid over these same years would be very, very large.
I'm thinking long term investors need to determine which route will be the best for them while I can undestand some short term investors might find more favor in the wrap fee account who wish to move in and out of their positions and trade a lot. There are some restrictions on how many nav transfers I can make over a given time span. These restrictions are designed to prevent a lot of in and out trading but do allow for repositioning my portfolio from time-to-time.
Also, know American Funds is not the only family of funds that I am invested with as they are mostly a large cap value shop. Some of the other fund families are Alger, Alps, Blackrock, Columbia, Delaware, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, First Investors, Franklin, Guggenheim, Invesco, Hotchkis & Wiley, J P Morgan, Loomis Sayles, Lord Abbett, Neuberger & Berman, Principal, Prudential, Sun America, Thornburg, Virtus and perhaps a few others that I missed. All of these fund families allow for nav exchanges within their family of funds so my cost to move around within their family of funds and reposition my portfolio from time-to-time is at no cost to me.
From my thinking there are no ongoing annual wrap account fees and/or advisor sales commissions, for me, as my sales charges have already been paid except for the small 12b-1 fee that applies on some of the funds I own.
Yep, I'm thining I've got the better deal over wrap fee based accounts and fee based advisors who charge annual retainer fees.
Old_Skeet

FYI: Taking measured risks is a must for investors in this divergent asset class.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=775012

FYI: The allure of tax-free growth has made the Roth individual retirement account an increasingly popular investment vehicle to leave to children or other loved ones. But heirs won’t reap the full benefit of a Roth if it isn’t passed down correctly.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.wsj.com/articles/be-careful-when-passing-down-a-roth-ira-1477275060

They could also just go with one share class: no-load, no 12b-1. If their creation of this new class is the response to fiduciary rules, why not accept the role of fiduciary in all they do? It is hypocritical at best.

What does this do exactly, anyone know? Will Scottrade brand be retained? How about the trading policies, commissions and minimums - which are now like Schwab's $100 for mutual funds?
Wish there was an easy way to identify which fund NTF at Scottrade were not at Ameritrade. I would sell them now to avoid hefty commissions.
What is the consensus on the board? Stick with Ameritrade or bail?

Davidmoran, could you provide more information on the "subpar performance" of the low-vol funds? I am not challenging your comment, but the ones we follow, specifically SPHD and SPLV, have out-performed their benchmarks rather nicely. Although SPLV is a bit under the S&P 500 YTD, it has done better over 2 & 3 years. Over five it is a bit lower, but it has done so with much less volatility. SPHD has run rings around the index. Understand that I do not expect it to continue its blazing path, as it has shown signs of weakening the last 1-3 months. But it is hard to argue with its overall performance. The same could be said for XMLV versus MDY. Some have suggested this is a fad. Perhaps. But so far, at least, when the index swoons, these have held up pretty well.

@MFO Members: It's official, TD Ameritrade to buy Scottrade.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/24/td-ameritrade-td-bank-to-buy-scottrade-for-4-billion.html

Fwiw, CAPE has seriously outperformed SPLV (also SCHD and similar) the last 4/3/2/1y/ytd, and if you track closely during drops, much less jumps, you give up effectively nothing in terms of 'volatility.'
I myself ended flirtation w/ low-vol etfs some time ago simply because of subpar performance.
So maybe that is some of it. (Of course I was not in SPHD.)

@TheShadow
Bumping this topic.
Keep up the great work.Thanks Shadow,et al.
Scout Funds
Based on information as of September 30, 2016, the Scout Funds listed are projected to make capital gain distributions as
indicated below. The equity funds will provide estimated income distributions in December and the fixed income funds will
continue their normal monthly income distribution schedule.
Record Date*: 12/15/2016; Ex/Pay Date: 12/16/2016
http://scoutinv.com/resources/documents/DistributionsMemo/2016 Distribution Estimates Memo 10-14-16.pdf?c=1477275470362

Most likely other members own less discussed and know funds, like GIBIX or GIBLX, retail version. Perhaps because the retail version has only been around one year it does not make most cuts when members are looking for established bond funds. I bought DBLTX as many did in 2015, but have not liked its extremely high concentration in securitized bonds. I traded it for GIBIX a year ago ( I have a ML account) and then bought its retail version for my ira at Fidelity. Solid returns, better downside capture than its index, Great Owl Fund, 5* at Morningstar and in top 10% of category since inception in 2012. Any others have undermentioned funds they like?

Who in the world writes these things? Do they do any actual research?
"As stock pickers, they’re generalists, surveying all parts of the market." 100% false. The Hood River managers each have sectors that they cover and make decisions for.

Thanks for pointing that out msf - and all the additional information.
Here's the part near the end of the NYT article I may have overlooked (along with several links embedded in the article).
"The 64 million workers with 401(k) accounts are covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, overseen by the Labor Department. The law outlines minimum guidelines and protections for workers and requires employers or plan overseers to act in the best interests of participants....But most assets in 403(b) accounts are invested in the murkier side of the market, which is not covered by the federal law, known as Erisa. Many hospitals and private colleges tend to hew more closely to Erisa standards, but a series of recent lawsuits against prominent universities argue there is still room for improvement."
A highly emotionally charged piece of writing - similar to how 60 Minutes manages to hype emotionally charged anecedotes while at the same time constructing the overall fact-based presentation. Not a knock on the style. Just a recognition of how the story is being presented.

The history is generally accurate, except for minor details. 403(b)s began in 1958, as noted in the accompanying NYTimes article (link is at end of article, or here).
It's true that Section 401(k) of the IRC wasn't enacted until 1978 (and didn't become effective until 1980), but 401(k)s are just "Cash Or Deferred Arrangement" (CODA) plans. According to ICI, these go back to the 1950s (with IRS rulings in 1956 to regulate them). The profit sharing (employer contribution) portion of these plans goes all the way back to the beginning of the modern income tax (1913), i.e. not counting the income tax that Lincoln instituted.
Similarly, there were annuity plans for educators predating Section 403(b) of the IRC, going all the way back to the founding of the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (TIAA) in 1918.
The NYTimes article cited above confirms that mutual funds were added to 403(b)s in 1974. But that's for "real" 1940 Act mutual funds. Remembering that 403(b)s were created as annuities, we can also consider variable annuities (i.e. similar to mutual funds, but contained inside annuity wrappers). The first variable annuity was the College Retirement Equities Fund (CREF), created in 1952.
IMHO, if one wants to talk about the full history, one goes all the way back to the 1910s. If one wants to talk about the modern regulatory era, one starts in 1974 with ERISA.

Good article. I'm sure the situation and plans vary greatly by employer and state. I believe that in Michigan there are some good 403B plans available in some public school districts, but they are highly dependent on what the employer and bargaining unit come up with. Dang - I've been searching for something about the original 403B, the year it began and why it began. Dry Hole!
What I think I know:
403Bs began in the 60s. They preceded the 401K by a decade or more. As Ted's linked article states, the 403B is for public employees like hospital workers and teachers. I suppose there are many reasons why they were first to have such plans. I suspect they may have been better organized and more politically active back than. Also, public DB (defined benefit) plans probably didn't measure up to those offered in the private sector in those days.
403Bs were originally synonymous with Tax Sheltered Annuity. My understanding is that initially they were by law limited to only annuities. Either thru law, jurisprudence or practice they broadened in the 70s to allow participant ownership of mutual funds and other investments. However, options had to be approved by the employer and were usually very limited (i.e. a single fund company).
A loophole well into the 90s allowed still working participants to transfer their funds from the employer's designated custodian to another plan custodian of their own choosing. (The plan retained the same employer/name - but another custodian agreed to manage the participant's assets). This, however was not widely known or understood. Further, in order to do this, the participant may well have had to pay high fees or loads on his initial in-plan contributions. Eventually the loophole was plugged either by legislation or regulatory fiat.
The 403B paved the way for the 401K that eventually followed. So in a sense, public sector workers did private sector workers a favor by paving the way. From Ted's linked NYT article it sounds as if the 401K is now much better designed and regulated.
Catch made a good point in another thread about participants not being savvy about money or motivated to invest and learn. Agree. But isn't this largely true of most employee contribution plans and most younger workers as well?