Check out this article:

Thanks for the article. If I am reading this chart correctly.

The chart illustrates that a 25 year old has 9x as much human capital as financial assets. A 40 year old has an equal amount of human capital as financial assets and at 60 year old should have financial assets equal about 9X their human capital. This chart seems like a pretty good way to gauge where a worker needs to be in the process of using human capital to accumulate financial assets which I assume is the intent of this chart.
I'll assume we're equating human capital (income producing activities moment by moment) to accumulated financial wealth.
As a simple example, if human capital at 25 years old is say, "$50K", then by 40 years old financial assets should equal "$50K". A 25 year old has 15 years to save some of his/her human capital each year to reach this goal at age 40. This amounts to investing about $2100 / yr with an average return of 4%. Seems very achievable.
If at age 60 your human capital is say "$100K", your financial assets should equal "$900K". A 40 year old has 20 years to invest some of his/her human capital each year to reach this goal at age 60. This would amount to investing about $25,500 / yr with an average return of 4%. This seems a bitt more challenging especially when things like college tuition, weddings, and elderly parents (or unemployed kids) are siphoning off some of your human capital.

Hi sma3,
With the apps we've employed on MFO Premium site, it's only possible to "stick" headings when the number of display parameters fit on one screen. So, that's what we do with GO, Three Alarm, Dashboard, etc. But with MultiSearch, which outputs some 80 parameters, we can't use sticky headers.
Next best thing, we've just implemented a vertical scroll bar. You will still be able to define max number of funds in vertical scroll window and even page to matching funds, but now the headers will always be visible, even as you scroll horizontally.
The vertical scroll window will dynamically span about 2/3 of browser window when viewing with relatively modern browsers.
Here's screenshot of new feature. Hope this helps address your recommendation.

Appreciate the feedback, as always.
c

Thanks @TSP_Transfer for the information.
In its review, I selected Hartford Growth Opportunities (HGOAX) since it contained about 6% of it's holdings in pre-ipo holdings, UBER being one of them. It is classifed as a large growth fund by M*. It's return are as follows for ytd/2.61%, 1015/10.55%, 2014/13.46%, 2013/34.75% & 2012/26.23%. Notice it has performed better than the above public private equity and/or business development offerings studied. However, when compared to the other three large/mid cap funds (AGTHX, JDCAX & SPECX) that I own there was not enough performance difference, for me, to warrant a switch out to the Hartford Fund.
Thanks again for posting the information and making comment.
Skeet

Year old article, but relevent.
Getting Into The Unicorn Boom: 10 Mutual Funds With Stakes In Pre-I P O Tech Stars
by Steve Schaefer , FORBES STAFF
Of course, for most investors there’s little need to chase the rich valuations brewing in private markets. Almost every high-profile I P O in recent years has revisited its offering price, including Facebook, Twitter TWTR +21.42% and Alibaba . But for those keen on getting early exposure, mutual funds that allocate a portion of their holdings to the space, without betting the farm that every billion-dollar startup is going to be a long-term success, is a reasonable strategy.
According to Pitchbook’s 2015 Unicorn Report, T. Rowe Price owns stakes in 14 unicorns, outpaced by only Sequoia Capital, Andreessen Horiwitz, Kleiner Perkins and SV Angel. Wellington Management has participated in funding for 12 unicorns, while Fidelity has been involved in eight such capital raises.
The table below shows 10 of the funds that own stakes in the tech world’s unicorns, and even though the businesses have lofty valuations, they still represent a small piece of the funds’ overall portfolios

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2015/10/14/unicorns-funds-fidelity-trowe-uber-dropbox/#76f71c9f57f4
Crony Capitalism for the Private Equity and Investment Banking Set ?
This is listed as an opinion piece,but still worthwhile for further background.
Startup Valuations, Mutual Funds, And The Saga Of Blue Bottle
June 16, 2016 - By Max Cherney
...mutual fund valuations are one of the few hard data points the public has to assess what the company’s shares are worth, or at least what mutual funds think they are. And that’s important—more than it has been historically—because of changes introduced by a 2012 law: the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act
Sold as a way to make the growing practice of crowdfunding legit, the JOBS Act also contained a provision that has had a profound impact on how companies are funded and at what point they go public: the fed axed the 500 rule—requiring a company to go public after it had more than 500 shareholders—and now only requires a company to I P O after it hits 2,000 accredited investors (though the number remains at 500 if those investors are not accredited).
Without the JOBS Act, Airbnb and Uber would likely have been required to go public (as Facebook was). Hence the number of large, private companies has swelled—why put an enterprise at the mercy of Wall Street’s grueling quarterly expectations if not absolutely necessary?
https://mattermark.com/startup-valuations-mutual-funds-saga-blue-bottle/
The coffee wars of San Francisco are back on!
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/25/blue-bottle-coffee-is-raising-another-a-big-round-of-funding/?
Silicon Valley is known for plenty unusual investments, anywhere from alternative food products to space exploration, and the coffee industry is certainly no exception. But there’s logic to it: there’s a huge coffee market and a near-perfect comparable in the market, with Starbucks hanging out at an $80 billion valuation. For any coffee company, capturing even a fracture of that market already means the company has hit unicorn status

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM D
Notice of Exempt Offering of Securities
Name of Issuer
Blue Bottle Coffee, Inc.
Jurisdiction of Incorporation/Organization
DELAWARE
Year of Incorporation/Organization
Over Five Years Ago
X Within Last Five Years (Specify Year) 2012
Yet to Be Formed
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1560324/000156032415000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml
https://techcrunch.com/unicorn-leaderboard/
Boy ! Did we miss this one !
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/theranos#/entiy
SCIENCE
Lesson of Theranos: Fact-Checking Alone Isn't Enough
AUG 8, 2016 10:00 AM EDT
By
Faye Flam @ Bloomberg
Elizabeth Holmes,at just 32, is the founder and chief executive officer of the high-tech diagnostics company Theranos, a startup valued at $9 billion that promised to revolutionize blood testing. Until recently, she was the world’s youngest female self-made billionaire..
Aug 8, 2016 Bloomberg - Lesson of Theranos: Fact-Checking Alone Isn't Enough
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-08/lesson-of-theranos-fact-checking-alone-isn-t-enough
TECHNOLOGY NEWS | Fri Sep 23, 2016 | 6:52pm EDT (Reuters)
Twitter initiates talks with tech companies over sale: sourceA sale of Twitter has been the subject of on-again, off-again rumors for many months as the company grapples with stagnant user growth, soft advertising sales and losses running at hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
The company's business struggles have come even as the 10-year-old service has evolved into a potent global source of news, entertainment and social commentary.
CNBC, citing anonymous sources, reported on Friday that Twitter is in talks with companies including Google (GOOGL.O) and may receive a formal bid soon. A source told Reuters that Salesforce.com (CRM.N) is also in pursuit.
TECHNOLOGY NEWS | Fri Sep 23, 2016 | 4:29pm EDT (Reuters )
Facebook apologizes for overstating key ad metric
Facebook has made a significant strides into video, which has attracted significant advertising interest and has benefited from the shift in advertising spending toward the internet and other mobile platforms.
Revenue from advertising was the biggest driver to company's total revenue in the latest quarter, surging 63 percent to $6.24 billion. "This could pose a serious blow to Facebook's video proposition, which has had so much of momentum over the last two years," said Sarah Wood, co-CEO of ad tech company Unruly, which is owned by News Corp.http://www.reuters.com/news/archive/technologyNews

Hi @MOZART325,
Thank you for your sugestion to look at GSVC and SVVC.
The first screen that I took these to task was a performance screen test.
Here was the results with their respective performance ... ytd ... 2015 ... 2014 ... 2013 ... & 2012.
LPEFX ... 1.65% ... (-0.56%) ... 0.44% ... 41.26% ... 29.70%
GSCV ... (-18.35%) ... 8.57% ... (-28.62%) ... 43.42% ... (-39.57%)
SVVC ... (-14.53) ... (-56.19%) ... 5.78% ... 34.67% ... 21.70%
Negative years are in (-x.xx%)
After review of this analysis I went no further since LPEFX was the better performer and goes to show how tough of space private equity and business development operates with the losses the other two have had. And, it makes me feel better about my pick to invest in this space through LPEFX.
Thanks again for you suggestion to review the subjects.

@rforno,
Thanks for making comment.
What might be other options for the small retail investor seeking exposure in some privetly held companies through a mutual fund wrapper? Any suggestions you might have to offer would be appreciated.
For information purposes ... I have owned this fund since October 2011 with my total return in the fund being better than 80% and with annualized returns being about 12.7% as detailed in my last brokerage account statement. In addition, the yield on amount invested, for me, is about 4.5%. In this low yield environment I think I'll continue to hold it. While it might not be right for some I am pleased, thus far, with what it has done for me.
Again, I'd like to take a look at at some other options if you have a similar mutual fund to offer.
Thanks again ... for your comment.
Old_Skeet

Worth a read: nytimes.com/2016/09/25/business/your-mutual-fund-has-your-proxy-like-it-or-not.html

I give more weight to performance 3 years and a few funds I've owned over 10 years.. At age 82 I don't have a alot of time. Other than index funds I only own VWINX-HBLIX, PRBLX, POGRX, PRWCX, VEIPX and GTLLX and 2 bond funds PIMIX and TGEIX.

Hi Guys,
What a disaster! The chart tells a story of cumulative failure. It is an outright disgrace.
The failure that I perceive is not a national failure. It is the failure of the individual and/or the individual family unit. The USA is a prosperous nation with almost unlimited potential wealth for its citizens. Yet the wealth depicted in the accompanying chart is truly dismal for individual folks.
The opportunities exist, but our financial discipline fails us as individuals. We want and demand the storybook good life before we can afford it. Delaying gratification would go a long way to resolving this problem. The small numbers shown in the chart as a function of age demonstrate the issue. 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.
Here is a Link to a nice PBS presentation that highlights some of the significant conflicting issues:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/why-so-many-americans-in-the-middle-class-have-no-savings/
My wife and I never succumbed to the temptation to overspend. We always saved about 15% of our gross income and invested wisely. I suppose that it was a wise decision to study the investment process. We did and we prospered. As a result, it is no exaggeration to claim we are chart busters. Some luck, some skill, but above all a disciplined saving and spending behavior.
I truly feel sorry for the median and below folks that are depicted by the chart. Those folks are in constant danger of being decimated by an unexpected negative happening that a few hundred dollars could easily cure.
Best Wishes.

I just went over to the government's TSP site and used their calculator to see what the "worth" in SS income of an equivalent annuity would be. Since I wanted a value for the bottom tier who may have almost no real savings or home ownership, I chose $1000/mo as their SS income. I think the annuity purchase closest to SS would be an increasing value payout with 100% survivor benefit. $400,000 would buy the annuity with a $1022/mo benefit. (Both members of a couple assumed to be age 66. Without the increasing component it would have been about $250,000. I don't know what the best price elsewhere would be.) Monthly benefit equivalents larger than $1022/mo would, of course, cost more if plugged into this calculator. Those of us with many times the savings required should appreciate the "ownership" of this tier to their "SS derived worth" even if, or especially if, the expense of annuities is up enormously due to low rates.

It has recovered, yes, but still lags well behind OAKBX and FPACX (say) for 10y and 20y, and behind FPURX and VBINX for 10y.

We're live. You can check out our September issue in the new layout at http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/issue/september-2016/
Please let me know if you have any problems with it.

FYI: More companies don't want you, or any other investor, to buy their stock.
Instead of listing their shares on a stock exchange, businesses are going private or never going public in the first place. Security company ADT, for example, pulled its shares off the market this spring after going private in a nearly $7 billion buyout. Uber, meanwhile, makes it simple for customers to hail a car, but investors can't easily buy a piece of the privately held company, which is valued at more than $60 billion
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7953517a32e9423ca8872a4371f252ba/how-incredible-shrinking-stock-market-affects-your-fund

Annualized - take a cumulative figure over any time period, and scale it to one year.
Investopedia's got this right:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/annualized-total-return.asp
Note that I cite Invesopedia here not as an authoritative source, but as a readable one, in case my writing/typing/formulae below are unclear.
For example, if you have a cumulative return of 21% for two years, you scale it to one year by taking the square root (1/2 power): sqrt (1 + 21%) - 1 = (1.1) - 1 = 10%
In general, given a cumulative return over a period of Y years,
annualized return = (1 + cumulative return) ^ (1/Y) - 1
You'll notice a striking resemblance to geometric average:
1 + cumulative return = (1 + first year return) x (1 + second year return) x ...
Unfortunately, figures under a year are often "annualized" without compounding, e.g. a six month return of 5% is "annualized" to 10%, not to (1.05 * 1.05) - 1 = 10.25%.

Gripe to the SEC (How to Read A Mutual Fund Shareholder Report):

Performance Table. Underneath the line graph is a table showing the fund’s annualized (or average annual) returns for 1-, 5-, and 10-year (or for the life of the fund, if shorter) periods.

Somewhere I've still got M-W's 2nd unabridged, on onion skin (from my parents). The last edition before they started including slang. If I can find it (not likely), I'll see what it says.
If one insists that average means (no pun intended) arithmetic mean: What was the average annual return of a fund that produced 50% and -50% returns over the past two years? 0% or -13%? Sure it's still a mean, but it's not the "usual" mean.
As for me, I'm still bothered by flammable. I get inflamed whenever I hear it :-)

I hate when people us the term "average annual return" in place of "annualized return." The two are nowhere near synonymous.

Defined pensions are a thing of the past. Only about 5% of workers have them and 50% of those work for gov't.

Speaking of fuzzy statistics, this number sounds way off. Pensions are declining, but not nearly that fast. As of 2011, 18% of private sector workers had traditional pensions, and 78% of government workers had pensions. (I've no doubt the figures have dropped in the past five years, but not by 3/4).

You are correct. I was thinking of union members.

Somewhere I've still got M-W's 2nd unabridged, on onion skin (from my parents). The last edition before they started including slang. If I can find it (not likely), I'll see what it says.
If one insists that average means (no pun intended) arithmetic mean: What was the average annual return of a fund that produced 50% and -50% returns over the past two years? 0% or -13%? Sure it's still a mean, but it's not the "usual" mean.
As for me, I'm still bothered by flammable. I get inflamed whenever I hear it :-)

Defined pensions are a thing of the past. Only about 5% of workers have them and 50% of those work for gov't.

Speaking of fuzzy statistics, this number sounds way off. Pensions are declining, but not nearly that fast. As of 2011, 18% of private sector workers had traditional pensions, and 78% of government workers had pensions. (I've no doubt the figures have dropped in the past five years, but not by 3/4).
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/12/art1full.pdf

The only way I see people surviving with such small net worth is,social security, food stamps etc and living hand to mouth. 46 million use food stamps.
This should give those of us with substantial net worth, SS and pensions pause to appreciate what we have.

That's a more accurate statistic. It's even worse that it looks when you consider that several millions of those people need food stamps while working. I agree with the sentiment - though IMHO it is better to try to give a hand up (however one feels that is best done) than to simply be thankful for one's own situation.