Hi Guys,
Peter Lynch made a rookie blunder when he recommended a survivable 7% withdrawal rate for a retirement portfolio. He based the faulty endorsement assuming historical average portfolio returns with zero volatility, zero standard deviation in those returns.
During retirement, portfolio returns variability is a killer.
One early critic of the erroneous Lynch analysis was the team from Trinity University. Their work became known as the Trinity Study. The professors, Philip L. Cooley, Carl M. Hubbard, and Daniel T. Walz, published a paper titled “Retirement Spending: Choosing a Sustainable Withdrawal Rate”.
They basically concluded that something like a 4% annual drawdown was more realistic in terms of portfolio survival. Here is a Link to a recent Forbes article that reviews the work:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/wadepfau/2015/06/10/safe-withdrawal-rates-for-retirement-and-the-trinity-study/
Much work has been done to update these findings. The Monte Carlo simulation codes are terrific tools to assess permissible withdrawal rates. They are now accessible on the Internet. These codes permit the user to explore countless scenarios in a quick and convenient way. The basic output is a portfolio survival estimate. What-if scenarios can be used to test the robustness of various portfolio construction options.
Here is a Link to the easiest code to input. It is on the MoneyChimp website. It is not the most sophisticated code, but it demonstrates the power of this tool:
http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/volatility/montecarlo.htm
Note that since these simulations are based on random return selections that are coupled to the statistical input, results will vary somewhat even for identical inputs. That’s the nature of market uncertainty that is captured by Monte Carlo methods.
I hope you find the references useful.
Best Regards.

I believe this might be what David means. Per M&P prospectus:

The Mairs & Power Balanced, Growth, and Small Cap Mutual Funds are offered by Prospectus only. The Funds are not available for sale to investors residing outside of the United States...

Possibly. Just as likely is the fact that at least in the past, M&P wasn't registered for sale in all of the 50 United States. I don't know what the current situation is (nor does it seem to be documented; one probably needs to call M&P).
1996, Spokesman.com: "The fund [MPGFX] has stayed small in part because it was available only to investors who live in Minnesota for the first 11 years of its existence. Today it’s available in 12 states"
2001, NYTimes: Expenses [for MAPOX] are a low 0.93 percent a year, partly because Mairs and Power reduces costs by marketing the fund in only 12 states. These include New York, New Jersey, California, Florida and Arizona."
2004, M* thread: "MPGFX is only available in 32 states and the Balanced fund is only available in about 12."

I thought for most humans with risk tolerance 80-20 worked best as it showed little gain given up compared to 100% equities and was much smoother. To me the real interesting asset allocation issue is whether to invest in international and whether to hedge currency. Obviously you should in situations like Japan in the last few years where it was clear the govt. intended to weaken the currency

@golub1: FYi: CIT
Regards,
Ted
http://www.seic.com/IMS/SEI_CIT_US.pdf
U.S. News & World Report Article:
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-smarter-mutual-fund-investor/2012/01/10/collective-investment-trusts-to-trust-or-not-to-trust

How about VWELX?
You can't open it at Fidelity, but you can open it at Vanguard, and AFAIK transfer it to Fidelity. I don't expect a transfer fee either way (i.e. Fidelity doesn't charge for partial transfers, and I don't believe Vanguard charges for transfers/closing mutual fund IRAs).
Take $3K from you IRA and send it to a Vanguard IRA. You can do this by trustee-to-trustee transfer (which should save you tax filing paperwork), or just pull $3K from your Fidelity account and do a 60-day rollover. Then do an in-kind transfer of the fund back to Fidelity.
That would get you access to the fund, save the $75 Fidelity commission for opening the account there (that is, if you could), and enable you to add to the position at Fidelity (just as you would with RPBAX).
I've gone through this process to get access to a fund that was closed at brokerages, albeit not in an IRA and not a Vanguard fund. Pretty straightforward process.

Curious why you exclude PRWCX? I do a lot of "volatility mitigating" (to borrow your termonology). And I'm not sure it's fair to evaluate any of these funds based on recent performance (past 3-5 years).Underperformance may simply mean their managers are seeing insane valuations where others are seeing value and so are either hedging against equity losses or holding higher levels of cash.
There's a lot of great ones. But here's my choices: OAKBX, TRRIX and PRPFX in roughly equal weightings. I toss them together in a group called "hybrids."
Here's how they finished Friday: OAKBX -2%, TRRIX -1%, and PRPFX -0.7%
Combined loss was -1.25%.
(For reference, PRWCX lost 1.72%. Dow and S&P each lost 3%.)

My existing Mod. Alloc. funds have been disappointing me for too many years (not just returns wise), therefore, I am considering reallocating those dollars. I want solid returns but not overly volatile for this class. In other words, excelent risk/reward returns and good downside protection is preferred.
I'm looking to mitigate some of the volatility that my portfolio has. This down-turn has exposed some imbalances.
These dollars are in an Fido Brokerage IRA so C/G concerns are zero! I also have about a 10-15 year time frame, thus this is a long-term investment!
I've come across of few possible candidates, such as:
MBEAX/MBEYX (AMG Chicago Equity Partners)
RPBAX (TRowe Price Bal.)
JABAX (Janus Bal.)
FBALX (Fido Bal.)
and a couple of others.
Any thoughts on these funds or other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you, Matt

Please, please, please let AUM in FLPSX, FBIOX and FCNTX get under $1B each so I can pour money into them.

FYI: In our previous article we discussed that domestic equity-focused funds are facing tough time in terms of fund outflows. According to Morningstar data, US-focused mutual funds and exchange traded funds have seen $78.8 billion worth of outflows in the first seven months of 2015. Continued transfers from open-end mutual funds to collective investment trusts at Fidelity triggered much of the outflows. This is higher than any full year outflows since 1993. The money had instead been poured into international funds. (Read: Foreign Funds to Buy on Worst US Funds Outflow Since '93 ).
Regards,
Ted
http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/187314/fidelity-suffers-massive-active-funds-outflow?article_id=187314&type=BLOG

I would think the one thing that could cause the greatest decline in the market is not China but more pain in the energy markets. More pain would be greater than expected bankruptcies and then a rout in the junk market. As much as we have heard about falling junk bond prices recently, they are still outperforming stocks YTD. Of course, energy is also what could lead the market back to new highs- namely an unexpected rebound. Then again, maybe there is something lurking out there we don't yet see that could lead to a further 15% to 20% or more market decline.

I did something. I took the opportunity to buy some mutual funds to capture the end of Friday's close. I bought a couple domestic micro cap funds (I figured if China's economy contributed to the market decline, it might be better to go smaller cap, since those companies are less likely to export and might be less influenced by a Chinese or global recession…plus I have been wanting to get into micro caps so it seemed like a good time to do it). I also bought a small amount of the S&P 500 index fund in my 401K. Yes, the market could go down more, but if you are ever going to buy, buy as the market goes down as it did to get a cheaper price, just don't swing for the fences. I keep lot in my stable value fund to take advantage of dips, so if the market continues to go down, I will buy a little more. I have about a 15 year time horizon. The only potential concern for my overall portfolio is that I am likely overweight in tech and healthcare.

The N Y Times has a few good columns today on the stock and bond markets. As for bonds, there's a front-page article reporting that mutual funds are engaging in a selling spree of emerging-market bonds, and this is contributing to a sharp decline in global markets. They are selling for good reason: their investors are withdrawing money from these funds. Last week alone, investors withdrew $2.5 billion from emerging-market bond funds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/business/investors-race-to-escape-risk-in-once-booming-emerging-market-bonds.html?_r=0
And Gretchen Morgenson writes a column in which she questions the vague disclosures made by highflying mutual funds. She warns that these funds put investors in peril.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/business/vague-disclosures-by-highflying-mutual-funds-may-put-investors-in-peril.html
If the waters are receding (a new bear market?), then we may soon discover which fund managers have been swimming without clothes.
[Confession: I really don’t know what’s in my bond funds. I’m trusting the managers to be prudent. I hope I’m trusting the right fund families.]

Personally, I'm very concerned.
I'm buying, but I don't think I'm buying in the traditional "buy the dip" mentality. I'm buying because I think something is a tremendous value (BPY, which I'll just keep continuing to buy - it's an MLP w/K-1 and not something I'm recommending because it's not conservative, but I think it's absurdly cheap), I'm buying because I really like a company a great deal and think of it as a decades-long holding and don't want to time it (Ecolab, Canadian National Railway, V/MA, others.) I'm buying because I think the market was already mis-understanding the fundamentals and is now indiscriminately selling the sector/panicking on top of it (Gilead). I'm buying because there's an element of me that's concerned that talk of rate rises turns to talk of "next-level" monetary policy easing when things turn South.
Am I buying because I think things are going to be a-okay? No. If anything, I'm certain that this period in the markets ends badly - it's not a question of if, it's a question of when and how - it's particularly the how that interests me as I think things may look very different than past crises and I'm not sure that owning cash and bonds will be the way to go again.

FYI: Stocks slumped worldwide this week, with U.S. and European markets off more than 5% and the Shanghai Composite Index losing more than 11%. Oil prices also skidded, dropping more than 6%. Traders feared that slowing growth in China, the devaluation of the Chinese currency and the overhang of too much debt could stifle global economic recovery. Here are five things you should know about how not to react.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2015/08/21/5-things-investors-shouldnt-do-now/

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-5000-yes-it-could-happen-2015-08-21?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Will probably see a lot of these warnings as the Cassandras come out in force after this week's carnage. Sure would have liked to have seen more fear here this week instead of buying the dips and averaging down on losers as the market kept cascading downward.

Peter Lynch recommended a 100% approach in one of his books. He claimed he had his analysts calculate what would happen if a retired person placed all assets in the market and concluded that a 7% withdrawal rate would work even if the market crashed during that person's retirement. I wonder if Lunch still believes that.

Up today and up for the week and way ahead of its category which was a loser. Never been more frustrated since I am unable to purchase it here in KY. Then again am even more frustrated in that I have a small position in another bank loan fund I would have exited last week. I NEVER hold onto a losing position. But unbeknownst to me they added a 1% short term redemption fee. When I purchased it I was under the impression it still was redemption free. Luckily for me I still came out ahead for the week as I hold more in MMIIX, a junk muni fund.
Unrelated, still don't see much fear here. Imagine a sharp rally is in store but until the junk corporate market stabilizes don't see much of an everlasting one.

My best fund today, other than cash, was DODIX - which didn't gain or lose.
From the watch-list: MFLDX, HSGFX and BEARX all had nice gains.
Approximately +1%. +2% and +2% respectively.

Pimco Managed Futures Fund up, as was the AQR Managed Futures fund.

My best fund today, other than cash, was DODIX - which didn't gain or lose. I'm spread-out pretty good. So, that's what I'd call a rotten day.
From my watch-list: MFLDX, HSGFX and BEARX all had nice gains.
Approximately +1% +2% and +2% respectively.
Interestingly, both gold funds I track were down a bit, despite the metal gaining.

A sort of interesting technical tidbit: 1970 has been cited I dunno how many times (e.g., here, months ago) as a key support level for the S&P, and it closed there, on the nose, today.