From the looks of it, Jaffe was just reading a line off the Natixis PR, which is a summary of what Hank observed was not a rigorous study.
Hank also caught onto the fact that both the survey Jaffe was referencing and the earlier survey that MJG linked to had polled advisors, not investors. However, upon reading the PR, one discovers that the investor expectations figure reported (8.5% above inflation) did not even come from that recent advisor survey data but from an older data set. So Jaffe was sloppy in his reading or his reporting in saying that a recent study reported this. (The info was in the PR for the survey, but not from the survey itself.)
Here are the PR pages for the current reports :
Natixis 2016 Individual Investor Survey (data collected Feb/Mar 2016, report May 24, 2016. full paper here)
Natixis 2016 Financial Advisor Survey (US data collected July 2016; PR dated September 28, 2016.)

FYI: Whoa, give us back our money. We wanted something boring.
That's what a growing number of investors are saying after joining the wave earlier this year into so-called "low-volatility" funds. These types of funds try to offer nervous investors a smoother ride, by buying stocks with a history of milder price swings than the rest of the market. Think power utilities, phone companies and other traditionally staid industries.
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/43d60efdfb2f495c94cc34c1ade88f3c/not-boring-enough-investors-leave-low-volatility-funds

FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
In the latest example of the impact of the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule, American Funds has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to create a stripped-down mutual fund share class.
The new F3 shares will be free of commission, 12b-1 fees, as well as the sub transfer agency fees that typically go to brokerage platforms.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161021/FREE/161029969?template=printart

Curious listing of share classes. What caught my eye was #4, AEPGX. Class A.
According to its SAI, the largest share class is R-6, RERGX, with $41B, vs. $26 for AEPGX. As this is an R-class, we know that virtually all of this money is in retirement plans.
The R-6 class is the largest, the cheapest, the most used in employer-sponsored retirement accounts. So why list a smaller, more expensive share class? It may be older, but the title of the article is most popular.
I agree that there's not much here.

@MJG
1. Here is the Natixis link from Ted's May 2014 post to which you refer. https://ngam.natixis.com/docs/352/754/562014_FINAL_Individual Investor Survey Full Report _4292014.pdf Unfortunately, it no longer functions. If you can provide a working link to the document on which I commented in that 2014 thread I'll be happy to take another look at it.
2. In reading my comments of May 2014 I can't see where anything in them contradicts what I've written here. The issue I addressed back than appears to have been an entirely different one.
3. As you note, I've commented more than once. My initial reaction was based on reading Jaffe's article which Ted linked. From that it appeared a study by Natixis had been conducted for the benefit of (and and directed towards) retail investors. I reacted to Jaffe's assertions from the standpoint of an individual investor. Later, after looking at the document you linked (which Jaffe cites) I addressed the document itself trying to better understand its origin, purpose, methodology and why some had found it troubling. I'm afraid Mr. Jaffe did not do a very good job relating some pertinent details to his readers.
Heated? Not me. If anyone else has been heated, I'm confident you'll deal with them in an appropriate manner.
I strongly agree that birthdays beginning with 7 or higher need to be vigorously celebrated.
Regards

Hi. Hank,
I certainly do agree with much of what has been posted on this exchange, especially your last posting. On this topic, with the same prime time players (Jaffe, Natixis), this is the second time around the horn for you. I'll provide a Link a little later.
Just like no financial advisor is created equal, no financial writers are created equal either. And separate columns composed by each writer are not equal. Brilliance is hard to maintain on any timescale.
This Jaffe column might not belong on the brilliant side of the scoring, but it is not a dud either. Jaffe has been using the Natixis work for a long time. For example, you commented on a similar column about two years ago. Here is the internal Link to the column and your comments:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/13442/chuck-jaffe-proof-most-investors-are-clueless-david-giunta-pres-natixis-global-asset-management
It is not surprising that Natixis uses a hired firm to conduct their surveys. That's a common practice. We do the same when we hire mutual fund managers to fill our portfolios with companies of their choosing. Nothing unusual about interpreting results generated by an outfit that you hired. Natixis uses Core Data to do their survey legwork. Here is a Link that describes the Core Data organization and some of their talent:
http://www.coredataresearch.com/about/our-approach/
Core Data seems to have the capabilities to do worldwide surveys. It doesn't disturb me one whit that Natixis does its own interpretation of the data collected.
I certainly agree with you that the summary conclusions you listed are mundane if they were the only conclusions or stats presented. But they were not. Just about each page of the white paper provided some detailed statistics associated with both advisors and their clients.
I also agree that the referenced white paper was designed for financial advisors, and not for private investors. That does not diminish the value of the surveys. These surveys still identify shortfalls in both advisor and individual investor thinking and planning.
This takes us back to the Jaffe article that prompted this hot exchange: investors "are Probably Way Too Optimistic About Your Investment Returns". Most of the postings don't argue this assertion. In any final analyses, that's what it is all about. A casual charge that Jaffe and Natixis are BSers is far too extreme. Certainly any analysis or article has shortfalls. Exceptions simply do not exist.
Sorry for the delay in my response. My wife and I are celebrating her 77th birthday. It's been a grand day.
Best Wishes.

Dear S. Disturber, (aka, @Old_Joe )
Could be either or both, depending upon how well the advisors surveyed actually performed for their customer base; as the Natixis whitepaper is apparently directed at a captive crowd of company connected advisors.
I did read that "alternative investments" seem to be on the "next or current" hot plate of places for money to travel; if the client is in the $1-4 million dollar portfolio arena.
If and when an investment advisor can provide a true document to me of how they performed for portfolio type "x", over the past 10, 5 and 1year time frames, that would have been or is suitable for me today, I'll listen.
The most simple baseline would be to compare against the inexpensive VWINX.
Below in bold, from the 2015 whitepaper linked prior:
Investment Pragmatist: More than three-quarters of advisors believe that a
traditional stock and bond portfolio is no longer enough to effectively manage
risk and pursue returns. Fortunately, continual innovation has provided access
to new asset classes, new pricing structure and new portfolio tools, allowing
advisors to make practical decisions about which tool will best fit client goals
and investment objectives.
I wish these folks (advisors and clients) well with the alternative path.
The below fund link at about 40/60, equity/bond over the long term. Pick your own equity/bond mix, a built your own, eh? My own caution note for such a mix is that some bond types may blow up at any time, and I would always advise to be observant. 'Course, folks here are always paying attention, yes? And don't forget that the death of the 30+ year bond market bull continues to be issued by someone, somewhere; one would suspect. I recall its imminent death announcement here several years ago (the thread exists somewhere, eh?), but I don't have time for search; although I recall Mr. Snowball was involved in the discussion).
VWINX performance
VWINX composition
Lastly, I have had several pre-Halloween treats today; in order to sample the quality of what we will distribute to the young ones. Hopefully, this has not affected, greatly, my ability to think or write. 'Course, in reading this before posting; I sound a bit arrogant, eh?
Well, I know I am as smart and do as well as some financial advisors on this planet.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Mr. Catch

Yup. Swallowed up.
http://www.mfwire.com/article.asp?template=article&wireid=2&storyID=55022&bhcp=1

Some qualification perhaps:
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/10/21/the-incredible-shrinking-fund-managers/

@ Non Subscriber MFO Members: (Click On Article At Op Of Google Search)
Even in the era of index funds, humans have fundamental investing advantages that no machine will ever replace. So says Will Danoff, manager of Fidelity Investments’ $108 billion Contrafund, the biggest actively managed stock or bond mutual fund run by one person
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/10/21/the-108-billion-man-who-has-beaten-the-market/

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/10/21/the-108-billion-man-who-has-beaten-the-market/
(as usual, viewable incognito if you aren't a subscriber)

FYI: Eaton Vance (EV) announced Friday that it would acquire Calvert Investment Management, the $12.3 billion Bethesda, Maryland, social investment manager, for an undisclosed sum.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161021/FREE/161029984?template=printart
Mutual Fund Wire Article:
http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=55022&wireid=2
M* Calvert Mutual Funds:
http://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundfamily/calvert-investments/0C00008PWF/fund-list.aspx

One of the links MJG provided (and on which Chuck Jaffe's article appears based) is to a Natixis publication clearly intended for financial advisors. It draws from findings included a survey of 2400 financial advisors worldwide. The survey was commissioned by Natixis and conducted during June and July 2015 by CoreData Research. Of the 2400 advisors queried, only 300 were from the U.S. Here's the link again: http://durableportfolios.com/docs/593/246/Global Financial Advisor Survey Whitepaper_2015 archived_final.pdf
Natixis did not conduct the underlying research, nor does the linked publication include the raw research findings. What you are seeing is a glitzy, possibly slanted, promotional piece designed to enhance Natixis's business and assist its network of commission-based advisors. It's therefore hard to evaluate, since it isn't directed at retail investors, but, rather, to the advisors who offer, promote or sell Natixis funds. https://ngam.natixis.com/us/by-price-and-performance
Jaffe appears to be in error in calling his source a "study" - as most would understand that term. Nor, I'll argue, should his source be termed a "survey", since Natixis did not conduct the survey. More appropriately, what one gets here is Natixis's interpretation of a survey conducted by someone else.
For purely illustrative purposes, here's some phrases contained in the the Natixis publication which do not comport with how a scientific study should/would have been written:
"... a perfect storm"
"... where the rubber meets the road"
"... plenty of fodder to fuel a heated debate"
I wouldn't drive across a bridge for which the engineering study of structural integrity contained such vernacular/vague terminology. :))
Natixis's "conclusions" are listed at the end of the publication. They might best be viewed as both guidance and suggested talking points for financial advisors.
--- Put risk first.
--- Maximize diversification.
--- Use alternatives.
--- Make smarter use of traditional investments.
--- Be consistent.
(I suspect MJG, and many others here, here would agree with some, but not all, of the above recommendations.)

Hi Old Joe,
We seem to be in complete agreement that both investors and their financial advisors are likely overly optimistic with respect to portfolio returns in the next decade. According to the surveys, financial advisors attempt to dampen the enthusiasm of their clients. That's probably a good policy. Realism is always superior to wishful optimism.
We part ways when assessing the worthiness of the Jaffe article that was referenced. It is not BS. To summarily discredit the article as BS does a disservice to Chuck Jaffe, to the company who conducted the surveys, and to the MFO membership.
Jaffe has been a respected and widely recognized financial writer for decades. He would never risk compromising his reputation by inventing statistics or referencing a faulty survey. He did not do so in the current article.
Jaffe relied on statistical data collected by an outfit (Natixis) that frequently does worldwide financial surveys. Typically their surveys question over 7000 individual investors and/or over 2000 financial advisors. These surveys are conducted in double digit countries.
You might not trust surveys. That is your choice. But the surveys seem to be very well designed and honestly conducted.. Before assigning the BS perjorative to Jaffe and the Natixis Global Asset Management firm, I suggest you visit the two Links that are now provided:
http://www.aaii.com/authors/chuck-jaffe
http://durableportfolios.com/docs/593/246/Global Financial Advisor Survey Whitepaper_2015 archived_final.pdf
Perhaps these documents might soften your strong opinion. I hope so. Neither Jaffe nor Natixis deserve your BS judgment. You may not believe the survey results, but they are the results.
Best Wishes.

Hi Guys,
Not only are investors far too optimistic of the level of near term return likelihoods, but their financial advisors are too optimistic also. It is not likely that the average portfolio will deliver the 5.9% returns over inflation that the professional advisors are currently projecting.
Given our low GDP growth rate of about 1%, the odds are against the good times that our advisor class is forecasting. The current GDP and irs coupled productivity growth rates are more than two times below our historical average. The other contributor to annual returns, the market's P/E ratio level, is far above its historical average, so the most probable direction for that contributor is downward, a regression-to-it's-mean movement which will subtract from returns.
Both these returns factors suggest muted near term equity returns, not necessarily negative, but perhaps a factor of two below the historical returns. This forecasting method, which has long been advocated by John Bogle, is not highly accurate for any given year, but it does a very respectable forecasting job over a timeframe like a decade.
According to that returns equation, expect muted equity returns, even below those endorsed by the reported financial advisor wizards. Retirement dates might need to be delayed for those assuming near historical equity market returns. That's not a high probability future. Sorry about that, but that's the way the cards are likely (never a guaranteed outcome) to play out in the next decade.
Best Wishes.

FYI: Investors expect annual gains of 8.5% above inflation, and advisers say that’s far too high.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/you-are-probably-way-too-optimistic-about-your-investment-returns-2016-10-20/print
Chuck Jaffe's Money Life Show: Guest: David Goodsell: (Scroll & Click On Download)
http://moneylifeshow.com/highlights.asp

@hank You can upgrade that to IntelliSafe Autopilot if you wish .
Germany Says ‘Nein’ to Tesla Calling Its Tech ‘Autopilot’
In the next few years, shopping for a luxury car will mean parsing terms like Drive Pilot (Mercedes), Traffic Jam Assist (Ford and Audi), Driving Assistant Plus (BMW), Supercruise (Cadillac), Automated Highway Driving Assist (Lexus), and IntelliSafe Autopilot (Volvo). These terms describe roughly the same thing: a car that can hold its lane and maintain a safe distance from other vehicles.
As automakers develop cars that drive themselves for real, you can bet those terms will become more common—and more confusing, which explains why regulators are stepping in.
No one said progress is easy.
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/germany-tesla-autopilot

Being mostly on auto-pilot, I haven't paid a lot of attention to trends this year. But Yikes. Fixed Income investments and dividend paying stocks do look hot.
My single largest holding, T. Rowe Price's Spectrum Income (RPSIX), has gained over 9% YTD.
Price's (now closed) High Yield Bond (PRHYX) has done even better, up 13% YTD.
Meanwhile, their highly respected (also closed) Capital Appreciation fund (PRWCX) lags both, having gained only 6.83% YTD.
VFINX (I track it to get a sense of how the Index 500 is doing) is ahead a relatively modest 6.64% YTD.
(Thanks to Junkster for getting the thread back on track)

http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/retirement/what-would-tom-brady-do-how-to-win-your-retirement-finance-game-by-playing-offense-not-defense/
Wells Fargo study shows that many 401(k) plan members play defense with their accounts. Data shows you build a bigger nest by playing offense. Here's how to do it sensibly.