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.

Here is my question to the above products. Does the cost of purchase always stay the same; with inflation taken into consideration. In other words if the market takes one (heck) of a beating, will it cost less after the beating? Derf

Maybe, but if so, not by much.
When you annuitize most annuities (fixed annuities, immediate annuities, deferred income annuities, etc.), you get a promised fixed stream of payments. Those streams come out of the insurance company's general account (i.e. they're just unsecured liabilities of the insurer). So to guess at how much effect the market has on annuity prices it would make sense to look at where the insurance companies invest their assets.
According to the Chicago Federal Reserve, on average insurance companies invest only 2.3% of their assets in equities. So whatever impact the equity market has is going to be miniscule. On the other hand, since 3/4 of their portfolio is in bonds (with another 10% in mortgages), the credit market should have a much bigger impact on pricing.
I've read several people suggest that even the credit market won't have much of an impact on purchase costs. That's because with annuity payments deferred for decades, most of the money for the checks is coming from other policies where the owners didn't collect (died), and not directly from insurance company investments.
Inflation is in a sense a non-factor. To the extent that inflation is reflected in the credit markets, and that the credit markets affect the cost of a policy, inflation will affect costs. But otherwise, it doesn't affect things. Basically, if you pay $100K for $X/month, that's going to be the nominal price regardless of inflation. (The problem is that the first $X check could be worth somewhat less if inflation is low, or a lot less if inflation is high between now and the time you get that first check.)
What does have the potential to significantly affect prices is longevity. If people start living longer, insurance companies will be more likely to pay out, and pay out longer. So costs will go up. On the other hand, if life expectancies drop, so will the cost of these policies.

It's a'gonna happen... just don't know when.

Seems like that just happened today, according to links which Ted provided. We are now officially down >10% from the May highs.
I have my shopping list handy, so we shall see what the mood of the market is next week.

Hi @TSP_Transfer
The U.S. 10 year continues the yield towards 2%. Will close around 2.05% today.

Macro View
Pressure Mounts on China to Act
August 21, 2015 By Scott Minerd, Chairman of Investments and Global CIO Guggenheim Partners,
As a result, the PBoC will soon be forced to reduce bank reserve requirements while allowing for a more rapid devaluation of the RMB. Time is not on the side of Chinese policymakers. Given the severity of the current domestic slowdown, pressure is mounting for more radical policy action.
Expect to see further downward pressure on commodity prices, global equities, and U.S. Treasury yields. The first sign that we are approaching a bottom for all three will be when China caves and allows the RMB to adjust to a more appropriate level, which could mean another 25–30 percent decline in the value of the RMB against the U.S. dollar.

Things will get worse before they get better, and investors around the world are demonstrating appropriate concern. Unfortunately, relief is nowhere in sight.
http://www.guggenheimpartners.com/perspectives/macroview/pressure-mounts-on-china-to-act

Not sure if the below was linked but answers a lot of questions on the three firms that offers QLACs through Fidelity and more. I also like the annuity calculator below. Looks like maximum age is 82 to purchase one. Personally, would take benefits beginning at 80 and not 85. I hike with some hearty 80 year olds, but not so above 85. For me one of the allures of the $125,000 is it is that much less against my nest egg that is subject to RMD. Also, instead of simply living off my principal till death do I part it gives me an income flow beginning at 80 other than SS. I guess I could also go the individual corporate bond route for income (instead of simply living off my nest egg principal) if I ever decided to 100% abstain from trading. Albeit psychologically can't see that happening.
https://www.fidelity.com/annuities/deferred-fixed-income-annuities/compare
https://www.immediateannuities.com/

One Article linked here states the following:
"The cumulative dollar amount invested into ALL QLACs across all retirement accounts may NOT exceed the LESSER of $125,000 (original regulations were only $100,000), or the aforementioned 25% threshold."
Can I assume that when doing this calculation that I combine all retirement accounts (tax deferred as well as tax free), not just the IRA accounts impacted by RMD?

I think the wording wasn't great. Short answer, no (or better stated, I don't think so).
There are two separate limits; you have to satisfy both of them:

• $125K total QLAC purchases inside your TIRAs, 401(k)s, 403(b)s, etc.
• 25% of each 401(k) balance (for a QLAC within that 401(k)), and 25% of combined TIRA balances (for QLACs in one or more of the TIRAs).

http://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/news/11651859/irs-issues-new-regs-for-longevity-annuities-exempt-from-rmd-rules
" Specifically, the amount of the premiums paid for the contract under an IRA may not exceed an amount equal to 25 percent of the sum of the account balances ... of the IRAs (other than Roth IRAs) that an individual holds as the IRA owner."
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2014-30_IRB/ar07.html
So you're not allowed to count your 401(k) or Roth IRA balance in computing how much you're allowed to buy within an IRA. That's limited strictly to 25% of the TIRA balances.
It gets even more complicated if you've already purchased a QLAC. Those premiums count toward the $125K max (and toward the 25%). The value of the QLAC also counts towards the value of your IRA (increasing the denominator for the 25% calculation).

With regard to using Roth IRA dollars for longevity risk Julian commented at the end the kitces article with this:
"I agree with you that there are better hedges for old age than longevity annuities. In a Roth IRA or non-retirement account, one option is to purchase U.S. Treasury STRIPS that mature at perhaps 80 or 85 years of age and at maturity time, buy an immediate life annuity with the proceeds. This has several advantages over a longevity annuity purchased years or even decades in advance: (1) the bonds can be cashed out prior to maturity and may be worth considerably more than their cost if held for many years, (2) the counter party risk (i.e., of an insurance company going insolvent) is eliminated, (3) not all -- or any -- of the maturing bond proceeds have to be committed to the immediate annuity, and (4) if one spouse dies -- or has significantly impaired health -- prior to purchase of the immediate annuity, the immediate annuity can be written for larger annual payouts than would be possible with a longevity annuity (e.g., written as a single life annuity or an impaired life annuity). By my calculations, if I purchase the STRIPS around age 60, then after about age 80-85, the IRR with this method is about 50 bp less than with a longevity annuity. However, this seems like a small price to pay for the advantages and flexibility outlined above."

Maximum purchase age - haven't found an absolute upper limit (beyond the obvious that it can't be above 85, since payments must begin by then). But I did find a commercial QLAC offering that allows purchases up to age 83. So it appears my thinking (that the max would be somewhere between 83 and 84) is sound.
American Pathway Deferred Income Annuity Qualified Longevity Annuity Contract FAQ:
https://estationsecure.americangeneral.com/SharedFilePile/CommonFiles/Annuities/AmericanPathwaySolutionsMYG/AGLC108007_FAQ_QLAC.pdf

I own XLE and it's getting killed. I bought it a few months ago in my IRA.

Sorry, I know how it goes. I bailed on COP in the upper $50's after buying it higher. I'm not getting into oil names, but as I noted in the other thread, I'd consider some "related" names/industries. My stuff is doing mostly lousy today. I think oil could go lower and get to the point where you get real distress.
The pure plays (COP) will likely rebound more than the integrated names, but again, what's the reason for oil to rally and if it does rally due to monetary policy or something like that, look at where we are - we're near where oil was before QE1.

One Article linked here states the following:
"The cumulative dollar amount invested into ALL QLACs across all retirement accounts may NOT exceed the LESSER of $125,000 (original regulations were only $100,000), or the aforementioned 25% threshold."
Can I assume that when doing this calculation that I combine all retirement accounts (tax deferred as well as tax free), not just the IRA accounts impacted by RMD?

Not a bloodbath yet.
But what I find amazing is the contrast in the 3 & 5 year returns for (diversified) large-cap equity funds in general and those funds focused on raw materials/energy. It's a stark contrast with the first group showing 10%, 15%, and even 20% annualized gains over 3 & 5 years, and the second group essentially flat or negative over that same period.
Doesn't make sense to me considering that to a degree the two groups are interconnected economically. (You don't buy a car and than not put fuel in it or drive it - or drive only on unpaved roadways. And few houses today are built of mud and grass and heated with solar.) Point I'm awkwardly trying to make is that the products which drive earnings for large cap stocks rely to an extent on the use of energy, metals, lumber, cement, etc. for their production and continued operation.
Either one group of stocks appears to be way overvalued - or the other way undervalued.

Anyone looking at energy ETFs/stocks at these prices?

See my comments in this thread:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/23174/bp-arco-or-chevron#latest

Interesting - I was going to link that article, but figured I'd wind up writing too much text around my link (I also wanted to cross check the calculator figures with the ones in the article, and didn't get around to that).
I thought most of the comments following the Kitces article were very good: the first gives a step-by-step procedure to getting a handle on the IRR; the second makes the same point I've posted here (that having a late term guaranteed income stream allows you to be more aggressive with your portfolio); the third compares a DIY system (acknowledging that DIY comes up slightly short, but with greater flexibility).
I haven't seen restrictions on purchase ages; in the absence of any, I'd guess that you'd have to purchase by the age of 83.5 or so. (That's because the policies must start payments by age 85, and these are deferred income annuities that typically require you to start payments at least 13 months after you buy them.)
I'm curious about starting ages and am still looking. Note that the max of 1/4 of IRA means that you'll likely be limited in how much you can buy if you wait until after age 80 (since you'll have been taking a decade's worth of RMDs in the meantime). All speculation so far, though.
A question I have is whether the QLAC payments would be considered IRA distributions for state tax purposes (I don't see why not). This matters because several states exempt some or all of IRA distributions from state income tax.

I'm wondering which scenario would be more beneficial, should a 55 year old:
#1. Wait until age 70, allowing the IRA to grow tax deferred to potentially get closer to the $125K max.
or,
#2. Purchase a smaller QLAC (25% of present IRA value) at an earlier age (55) which would provide the time value (buy at 55 distribute at 85) to work in your favor.
Hopefully a QLAC calculator will answer this question soon.

FWIW, here's the Vanguard website page on the fund (open only to clients of Vanguard Institutional Advisory Services®):
https://institutional.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip/site/institutional/investments/productoverview?fundId=1298

same courses. still 80/20 in 401@work. bought couple of oil bonds recently yield ~ 7%