Always wonder about the Big concern with Loads, Performance of Level Load is based on NET figures, (that is minus the 0.75% load paid every year) for your easy comparison.
10 yr. return of class-C (level load) OSMCX blows its competition away (#1 over ten years by more than 1%/year).
On a serious note, if one would consider owning the Great Owl Fund WAIOX (now closed), that was the second best performing fund in the category over the past decade, then why exclude the better performing and cheaper (including embedded load) Oppenheimer fund OSCMX simply because it has a load?
Though now one can purchase the much cheaper A share class OSMAX load-waived, which offers even better performance (how could it not - same fund at lower cost) at a low (for the category) ER.

Similar story on my intl small cap OSMYX, its up 12% ytd, not quite as good as yours, but will take it :) I consider this category part of my aggressive sleeve, strictly for my roth which likely won't get tapped for at least 10 more years.

This fund had stunk up the place last year. Right now YTD up 18%. For what interest it holds. Whtondering if it is riskier than I thought, but I never thought so.

FYI: As long as the economy is growing, and inflation isn't a problem, any increase in rates caused by the Fed should be a good sign, not a bad sign, says the Osterweis Capital Management chairman and CIO.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/videoCenter.aspx?id=695719

Always wonder about the Big concern with Costs, Performance is based on NET figures, (that is minus all costs), for your easy comparison, If you NEED to Worry.....
be concerned with Performance! 10 yr. returns would be a good place to start

@savra
Which of the funds are you considering in the below linked list?
Your having access to your 403b web site should allow you to determine from that list what the fund types consist. An example: aggressive growth should be noted in the prospectus or listing of particular funds. Growth and income can be considered a type of "balanced" fund; but there are many flavors of "balanced" funds; some being more aggressive than another.
TIAA CREF funds list

" In 1945, the largest 25 mutual funds in the United States cost an average of 0.76 percent per year. ... The biggest active funds in 2004 cost 1.56 percent."
I don't know about 2004, but in 2015, the average ER of the 25 largest active funds (using the share class that M* picks with "distinct portfolio") is 0.66%, about 13% lower than it was in 1945.
"No active fund is as cheap as it appears [because of trading costs]." Misleading in a couple of ways, the main one being that index funds also have trading costs (for the most part, it's turnover, not index vs. active, that matters). The minor issue is that there is a fund that never changes its portfolio, and it's not an index fund. Most of the people here don't need to be reminded of it - LEXCX.
If one talks about bond funds, even index funds, they're going to have a lot of trades, because they're constantly replacing bonds that mature (or come too close to maturity to keep in the portfolio). Looking at the pure equity funds in the largest 25 active, one sees turnover ratios ranging from 11-12% (D&C Int'l DODFX and Harbor Int'l HAINX) all the way up to 45% (Fidelity Contra FCNTX); no other fund is above 0.39%. These are all way below the "average" fund's 72% turnover.
Then there is a trading cost particular to index funds - front running (related to reconstitution). No mention of it in this article. And what about index funds that are not market (or at least free float) weighted? They have higher turnover by design. See, e.g.
http://www.investingdaily.com/11263/equal-weighted-index-etfs-pros-and-cons/
None of this is to suggest that index fund "hidden" costs are higher than active fund costs. Just that it would be nice to read articles that didn't start from a conclusion and apply data selectively to reach that conclusion.
For completeness, the bond/hybrid funds in the largest 25 funds are:
ABALX, CAIBX, AMECX, MBLOX, SGENX, FKINX, MWTRX, PTTRX, TPINX, VFSTX, VWELX
The equity funds in the largest 25 funds are:
AMCPX, CWGIX, AEPGX, ANCFX, AGTHX, AIVSX, ANWPX, AWSHX (all American Funds!), and DODFX, DODGX, FCNTX, HAINX, VGHCX, VWNFX

FYI: U.S. stocks are near record highs. But what if there's another market meltdown like the one from October 2007 to March 2009? Such a catastrophe can be tough if you're ready to retire or early in your retirement years. A severe bear market right before or after your paychecks cease can make mincemeat of your carefully constructed retirement planning.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTkzMjMxMTE=
NY Times Slant: New Math for Retirees and the 4% Withdrawal Rule
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/09/your-money/some-new-math-for-the-4-percent-retirement-rule.html?ref=business

FYI: Authors Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller were chatting at a party on Shelter Island. Their host was a billionaire hedge fund manager. At one point, Vonnegut says to Heller, “You know, this billionaire makes more money in one day than you made in your whole lifetime from your novel Catch-22.”
Heller responds, “Yes, but I have something he will never have…enough.”
Catch-22 wasn’t just read by a few of Heller’s sympathetic friends. It has sold more than 10 million copies.
Regards,
Ted
http://assetbuilder.com/andrew_hallam/why_even_vanguards_mutual_funds_cost_more_than_you_might_think

There is one fact that I don't think is part of common knowledge, is only occasionally mentioned here and there, but has been acknowledged by the SSA itself (when pressed):
most SS beneficiaries die before receiving, in cumulative monthly payments, the amount of money they have paid into the SS system.
Now, this fact could change for baby boomers, since we fancy that we "reinvent" everything, and perhaps the age-specific mortality rates for our demographic may be different. Too early to tell, I suspect, but we should have a pretty good idea in 5-10 yrs how things are gonna "trend" on that score. We may nudge our Bell Curve up a tiny bit, but as far skewing the Bell into a distorted 90s bulge.... I think not.
These are a couple of things I put into my Monte Carlo and smoke, as I whistle past the graveyard.

Compare RPG and RPV together vs RSP (amazing thus far) or even SCHD. I would own a third of 1,2, and 4.

I own two equal weight index funds. One is a large cap fund (IACLX) which invest in equal amounts in the largest 100 stocks found in the S&P 100 Index. The second is a large/mid cap fund (VADAX) that invest in equal amounts in companies found the S&P 500 Index. Both funds rebalance quarterly. In this way stocks that have done well are trimmed and those that have lagged are increased back to their target weightings.
Old_Skeet

"The back office policy writers cause a lot of this but there are plenty of drones who act like they are doing you a favor just by being there."
Yes, but I can't almost blame them if they are sullen. It's about "worker productivity." Which is to say: squeezing out every last little moment from the employee, as if they were machines. I just never learned the lesson that the employer OWNED me while I was on the job.
Yes, immigration is dreadful. Website said the Consulate was open in Cebu from 8-11. Wonderful. Let's go early and do what we need to do, and have the rest of the day to do what we WANT to do...
.......Only.... um......... It's true: the Consulate DOORS are open from 8-11 a.m. But the Consul does not arrive until 11. So nothing gets done until 11, after the doors are locked.
The wonderful CONSUL explained to me that he's an American businessman in Cebu, and is "doing the government a favor" by taking a stipend or small wage or salary to fill the very part-time post of Consul there. When I approached the service window after an hour or two of sitting on my ass, and a couple of others did the same, the FABULOUS employees simply said: "Please ask the Consul when he gets here." And they were more than likely instructed to say that. Talk about a totally ludicrous state of affairs.
The problem is systemic. And brainless geeks put it together in such a way as to make everything as difficult as possible, rather than to SERVE the public.

@bee: Thanks ! Your the buzz !!
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?q=buzz+bee&biw=1280&bih=585&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=G01OVfvnEsLkoATv9oH4Cw&ved=0CEgQsAQ#tbm=isch&q=+bee

I have not done the work (sorry) but think the equal weight outperformance is mostly due to the bias of smaller average caps outperformance . I suggest that a 50% S+P 500 50% extended market index would mostly outperform the equal weight at lower cost. I am also surprised that the equal weight Nasdaq outperformed in 2014 when aapl and msft had good years though the article doesn't exactly say it did (multi year performance could be influenced by bad year for aapl

FYI: “Smart beta” is a term that has increased in popularity over the last year or so. The straightforward idea is that there are numerous problems with the way that traditional stock and bond market indices — and their tracking funds — are constructed.
Regards,
Ted
http://investorplace.com/2015/05/invest-equal-weight-etf/print

FYI: Bond giant Pimco rolled out on Thursday the Pimco Capital Securities and Financials Fund, which will invest in capital securities, including subordinated bonds, preferred shares and contingent capital instruments issued by financial institutions globally.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/07/investing-pimco-fund-idUSL1N0XY2H920150507
M* Snapshot PFINX: http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PFINX/quote.html

This thread has been way more than worth my time. I have devoured it and noted a great deal of it, and stored a bunch of it in my email. Substantial, thoughtful, meaty, deep. From different angles. I, for one, thank the group here and now. About my "Mickey Mouse" reference: it's just that there are so many letters, so many options, so many "Parts." If it's made much more complicated, the gov't will run out of letters.
I don't trust the government, but we can't do without some kinda government. And I don't trust for-profit Health Care ANYTHING. The government can be relied upon to screw up the simple task of pouring piss out of a boot, with instructions written on the boot-heel. I still think Single Payer would be simpler and more comprehensive. Have any of you other guys ever attempted to navigate Romneycare in MA? (No need to answer. You get my point.)
More news: another waiver requested.
http://wwlp.com/2015/05/06/baker-asks-feds-to-allow-mass-to-deviate-from-affordable-care-act/

Ralph may be lucky to have you.
In 1983 or so, some Japanese CD company, after Sony and its CDP101, did an early release of a fancy CDP model with this new feature --- random play. (You might see where this is going.) When you pushed that button, the CD was played randomly. Meaning track 1,3,2,1,1,1,4,6,3,3,5,5.
It was only a matter of months before the units were returned enough by consumers to be recalled, and thus was born shuffle play.

Hi Guys,
Over the last few days, a tennis buddy, Ralph, tried the Monte Carlo simulator that I recommended for the very first time.
Although he is certainly not mathematically illiterate, Ralph is not especially sophisticated in the odds calculation arena. Truth be told, he is a terrible gambler, but a terrific tennis partner. Vegas comps him lavishly. Until yesterday, he had never run a Monte Carlo code. He called me today to register a complaint.
Ralph made a sequence of runs with identical inputs. He was shocked that the projected portfolio outcome success percentages slightly changed with each simulation. He questioned the reliability of a code that produced different end results on each trial.
I assured him not to worry, and neither should you guys. I suspect many of you know the reason.
A Monte Carlo code randomly selects numbers given the programmed model (Gaussian or a modified form thereof) and the statistical input parameters (mean annual return, standard deviation). Therefore, although typically a thousand random individual cases are computed for each input scenario, it would be shocking if the end outputs were identical for each scenario. Ralph was a happier warrior when he said good-by.
Also, users should be cautious when interpreting probabilities expressed as percentages (as in the Flexible Retirement Planner format) or as a frequency. Percentages are more abstract; frequencies seem more concrete. Folks are swayed in their decision making by the output format according to behavioral wizards.
Folks are likely to make better decisions when the probability of success is quoted as 80 out of 100 cases than when presented as an 80% success probability. Also, if fear generation is a presentation goal, more fear will be induced if the results are given as a 20% failure rate rather than an 80% success ratio. So much for rational decision making!
Please try a few simulations yourself to explore the likelihood of your portfolio’s survival rate, not its failure odds.
Best Wishes.