I'm not sure it's so much an ad for advisors as a somewhat numerically illiterate article.
It says that the "majority" of employees using advisors (43.9%) are Gen X, while Boomers came in second at 43%. It says this is surprising. It is not. It is arithmetic.
There are more Gen Xers (82M in the US) than Boomers (75M). Of those, many have retired and rolled over their employer plans. So there are many more Gen Xers in retirement plans than Boomers. Even if they're using advisors at a lower rate, the absolute number of Gen Xers with advisors should easily exceed the absolute number of Boomers using advisors.
https://www.kasasa.com/articles/generations/gen-x-gen-y-gen-z
The writer seems to think that Boomers would be more likely to use advisors. Let's assume that's true. Boomers tend to have (much) larger account balances. Putting these together, it's easy to see how the average advisor account (skewed by the large Boomer accounts) could be significantly larger than the average self-managed account, even if the advisor adds no value.
Let's say 32% of Boomers use advisors, and 16% of everyone else uses advisors. Let's say that Boomers represent 1/4 of all employees. (That means that 20% of everyone uses an advisor, as given in the article, since 32% x 1/4 + 16% x 3/4 = 20%.)
Boomers, being older, have larger accounts. Let's say on average, they have $1M in their accounts, and everyone else on average has $50K. Of all the employees, 20% use advisors, 80% don't.
The average advisor account value is: (32% x ¼ x $1M + 16% x ¾ x $50K) / 20% = $430K
The average self-managed account val is: (68% x ¼ x $1M + 84 % x ¾ x $50K) / 80% = $251,875.
This is not a sales pitch for using advisors. It's a sales pitch for growing your 401K as you get older. With or without advisors.

FYI: Most retirement plans, such as 401(k)s, typically lock you into a plan that offers a small selection of mutual funds for the participants to invest in.
However, more retirement plans are letting participants have a brokerage account within the plan. This allows investors to invest outside the plan's investment offerings, and put their money into any mutual fund, exchange-traded fund, stock or bond they choose.
Among these self-directed brokerage accounts (SDBAs) only 20% of the participants worked with an advisor, according Charles Schwab's SDBA Indicators Report for the second quarter of 2019. The study found that the SDBA participants who worked with an advisor had an average balance of $448,515 – nearly twice as much as the $234,673 held by non-advised participants
Regards,
Ted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lcarrel/2019/08/31/investors-in-retirement-plans/#2d5acbfc4467

@Old_Joe: I delayed my retirement until 2012 because of the crash. In 2008, we had our house for sale and the day it was to be appraised for the prospective buyer, Bernanke said something to the effect that “we may not have an economy left.” Fortunately, the appraiser did not low-ball the property and the buyer’s loan was approved. It was more than stressful.

Years back when I was in the accumulation phase of investing I rolled with equity allocations, at times, upwards towards the 60% to 70% range along with holding about 10% in cash so when stock market pullbacks came I had some cash that I could put to work to take advantage of the pullback. Then as the stock market recovered I'd trim my equity allocation booking some of the gains made during and after the recovery.
Interestingly, the Vanguard risk questionaire, contained in the article, suggested, for me, a portfolio of 40% bonds and 60% stocks. And, I'm retired.
Now being retired, for the past five years, here is how I now roll with a description of my all weather asset allocation detailed below.
Old_Skeet's All Weather Asset Allocation.
My all weather asset allocation of 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity affords me everything necessary to meet my needs now being in the distribution phase of investing. The benefit of this asset allocation is that it provides sufficient income, maximizes diversification, minimizes volatility, and provides long-term returns.
The 20% held in cash area provides me ample cash should I need a cash draw over and above what my portfolio generates plus it can provide the capital necessary to fund a special investment position (spiff) should I choose to open one during a stock market pullback. In addition, cash helps stabelize a portfolio during stock market volatility. Example of investments held in this area are cash savings, money market mutual funds and CD's.
The 40% held in the income area provides me ample income generation to meet my income needs in retirement. It is a well diversified area that incorporates a good number of income generating type funds. Some examples of investments held in this area are ISFAX, LBNDX & PONAX.
The 40% held in the equity area provides me some dividend income along with some growth, that equities generally provide, that offsets the effects of inflation over time. Some examples of investments held in this area are NEWFX, SVAAX & SPECX
Generally, for my income distributions, I take no more than a sum equal to what one half of my five year average total return has been. In this way principal grows over time.
I'm thinking that all investors should write out their investment plan which should include how they plan to invest during stock market declines along with both short term and long term goals. Then monitor their results and make adjustments as warranted including rebalancing their portfolio form time to time to maintain their established asset allocation.

Looking for recommendation ; prefer conservative oriented conv sec fund or etf for income joe in retirement all responses are appreciated

FYI: (Slide mouse to 17:20 minutes for Andrew Foster interview.)
Andrew Foster of Seafarer Capital Partners said that trade and tariff wars have not stopped growth in emerging markets, but they have exacerbated a slowing trend, particularly in China, that will make developing and emerging markets harder to profit from in the near future. Foster noted that valuations in emerging markets are reasonable, but without growth to help drive the market, investors should expect muted returns from emerging markets for the long-term future. Also on the show, Greg McBride of Bankrate.com talks about how many workers are not increasing their set asides to retirement plans, Sam McBride of NewConstructs.com -- no relation -- discusses a stock that is headed for trouble and Greg Woodard of Manning and Napier covers stocks in the Market Cal
Regards,
Ted
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/moneylife-with-chuck-jaffe/e/63468599?autoplay=true
M* Snapshot SFGIX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/sfgix/quote
M* Snapshot SFVLX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/sfvlx/quote

Best Blue-Chip Stocks to Buy for the Rest of 2019
https://money.usnews.com/investing/stock-market-news/slideshows/the-best-blue-chip-stocks-to-buy-for-the-rest-of-the-year
U.S. News & World Report
Invested
Advice, rankings and stock market news for investors.
Aug. 26, 2019
Today's Big Idea
Best Blue-Chip Stocks to Buy for the Rest of 2019
With 10-year Treasurys yielding just 1.6%, conservative investors have few options in the stock market today. Proven large-cap stocks with robust business models are a solid choice for investors.
Here are seven of the best blue-chip stocks to buy for the rest of 2019.
1. Target Corp. (ticker: TGT). While the terms “Target” and “robust business model” might not bubble into consciousness simultaneously, perhaps they should. The big-box retailer is coming off a blockbuster second quarter in which online sales jumped 34%, earnings per share advanced 20%, and management raised full-year EPS forecasts.
2. Johnson & Johnson (JNJ). Johnson & Johnson has been considered a reliable blue-chip stock for over a century, and if it weren’t for a stronger dollar, sales would be rising in the mid-single digits internationally right now. JNJ shares offer a 2.9% dividend. – John Divine
Target Corp. (TGT)
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)
Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B, BRK.A)
Walmart (WMT)
AT&T (T)
PepsiCo (PEP)
McDonald’s Corp. (MCD)
1290 Diversified Bond Fund TNUAX
$62.3M
6.61%
1290 DoubleLine Dynamic Allocation Fund TNXAX
$60.5M
4.32%
1290 GAMCO Small/Mid Cap Value Fund TNVAX
$101.9M
-6.64%
1290 Global Talents Fund TNYAX
$27.5M
-10.23%
1290 High Yield Bond Fund TNHAX
$35.1M
4.74%
1290 Low Volatility Global Equity Fund TNZIX
$3.4M
5.08%
1290 Multi-Alternative Strategies Fund TNMAX
$18.6M
-2.28%
1290 Retirement 2020 Fund TNIIX
$10.6M
4.37%
1290 Retirement 2025 Fund TNJIX
$17.7M
4.34%
Data as of August 26th, 2019
Unsubscribe from this email list
Manage my email preferences | Privacy Policy
1050 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Washington,
DC 20007 USA
USN Facebook Link USN Twitter Link USN Google Plus Link
© 2019 U.S. News & World Report, L.P. All rights reserved.

"...Average Joe/Jane investors may be nervous about their financial well-being, college funds, retirement plans, etc, and he's totally oblivious to them -- just has to snark on his political opponents quitting the race. Because, it's all about him and being the authoritarian strongman bully."
Perfectly apt description. What is most appalling to me is that so many could not see this prospect during the campaign. They voted for this huckster with bad business sense. And now, with the absolute highest possible degree of sarcasm, I quote scripture: "...And a little child shall lead them."

I woke up this morning to see headlines that Tweety Amin expressed 'second thoughts' about increasing the China tarriffs. Then, 2 hours later, the WH says he meant to say he had 'second thoughts' about the percentage of the increase and that it should've been higher, and his talking heads are reinforcing that on the bobblehead shows here. If this was during market hours, we'd have seen more 500-point whipsaws in the Dow.
The pathetic thing is that Nobody. Can. Plan. Effectively. China fiasco aside, he's flailing more and more ... i.e., the economy is 'booming' and the 'best ever' but he needs the Fed to cut rates anyway. He announces, or hints of announcing, something and then needs others to clean up after him before he reverses/suspends his decision once it polls poorly. Yes, there's the usual marketplace uncertainty we all accept as investors, but we've got a whole new level of instability here -- and then factor in algos that trade off of headlines between themselves, and you have a recipe for disaster. Speaking of algos, gods help us if the idiot rambles about gun violence, war, and the markets in the same tweet.
He was actually tweeting jokes about the Dow's drop on Friday, too. Average Joe/Jane investors may be nervous about their financial well-being, college funds, retirement plans, etc, and he's totally oblivious to them -- just has to snark on his political opponents quitting the race. Because, it's all about him and being the authoritarian strongman bully.
I shudder to think what this regime would have done if they were in charge during the GFC. We'd probably still be in it, based on their current track record for effectiveness, planning, and competence. But it'd never be *his* fault, because in the world of delusion created by his liddle stable genius chosen-one mind, he can do no wrong, ever.
GRUMBLE.

@Bee, I have a large cash pile from account consolidations in recent years that for the most part has yet to be deployed into anything other than rolling-over t-bills. I've been using that dry powder to buy new / add to existing positions in recent weeks to my otherwise rather healthy longterm portfolios and am becoming more aggressive b/c I hate to have it just sitting there.
(I don't consider that cash as part of my investment 'holdings' per se, which is why I say that 90% of what I'm invested in are stocks and stock funds -- I don't own much FI or alts or commodities, etc.)

@rforno, if you are presently 90 % invested in equities and your equities tank, how will you by equities hand over fist? One needs cash or non-equity correlated assets to exchange into equities when they fall in price.
Over the last couple of years I have milk my equity cows when they have out performed. That milk represents growth above the long term average for that investment ( for example I use yearly growth above 10% as my trigger for Large Cap).
This "milk" is stored for future retirement income to pay for things) or, as you mentioned, to potentially buy things on sale.
So far I have enough stored "income milk" for 3 - 5 years. This should keep me from selling my equities when they temporarily tank.
My next goal is to store some dry powder from out sized gains if equities continue to out perform.

@rforno, if you are presently 90 % invested in equities and your equities tank, how will you buy equities "hand over fist"? One needs cash or non-equity correlated assets to exchange into equities when they fall in price.
Over the last couple of years I have milk my equity cows when they have out performed. That milk represents growth above the long term average for that investment (for example, I use yearly growth above 10% as my "milking trigger" for Large Cap).
This "milk" is stored for future retirement income (to pay for things) or, as you mentioned, to potentially buy things on sale.
So far I have enough stored "income milk" for 3 - 5 years. This should keep me from being forced to sell equities when they are temporarily under valued.
My next goal is to store some dry powder from out sized gains if equities continue to out perform. This could serve as a source of money to buy equities when they temporarily go on sale.
Your thoughts?

I'm ready... Been hoping a recession would come sooner than later. Trying to time my retirement around it.

Good luck. SMH

I'm ready... Been hoping a recession would come sooner than later. Trying to time my retirement around it.

Oooh, now you've done it ...
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/51886/m-when-vanguard-s-retirement-income-calculator-stopped-making-sense

When Vanguard's Retirement Income Calculator Stopped Making Sense
"Try Harder!
The president of the American Finance Association, Dr. David Hirshleifer, noticed something peculiar about Vanguard's Retirement Income Calculator. By its reckoning, a hypothetical 55-year-old investor who saved at the tool's highest possible rate, earning the highest possible return, holding the highest possible current retirement assets, and willing to settle for the lowest possible income-replacement rate … would fail. Her projected monthly income would fall short of the projected goal."
Click here for more

Thank you msf, a thoughtful analysis.
I am an uninformed bystander in the annuity world. But what I do know (or think) is that an investor should not use annuities for all their retirement investment but they should consider replacing a portion of their fixed income sleeve with one.

While I agree that VAs are widely oversold, you'll notice that the second and third paragraphs above are comparing VA deferred annuities with fixed income immediate annuities. Not especially meaningful, but it makes for a great sound bite.
Do you care what the average VA costs, any more you care what the average fund costs? Or do you care what your annuity or your fund costs? Vanguard offers a VA that costs 0.48% (average across the funds offered in the annuity). And unlike the "usual" VAs that charge "stiff penalties", low cost annuities like Vanguard's charge no penalties.
https://investor.vanguard.com/annuity/variable
Likewise, do you care what the average SPIA pays, or what you can get by shopping around? BlueprintIncome.com says that the best current payout rate on a $100K joint life annuity for a 60 year old couple (i.e. younger than the example in the article) is 5.586%. That's quite a bit more than the 4.38% average rate cited in the article. (Admittedly, I'm ignoring the quality of insurer, but then so is the article.)
The article says that according to Vanguard's Monte Carlo Nest Egg Calculator, using the 4% rule with a retirement investment portfolio (with what asset mix, it doesn't say), you've got a 9% chance of having no money left over for heirs. That's a euphemistic way of saying that you have a 9% chance of running out of money while you still need it.
The point of insurance is to protect against worst case events. What happens if the worst happens and you live longer than 30 years? :-) Your odds of being left destitute increase.
The articles presents a particular perspective, and in doing so shades wording, frames numbers, and speaks in generalities that advance this perspective. That's not to say there isn't validity in the picture it draws. Just that it's drawing only part of the picture.

FYI: Plenty of people shudder when they hear the word, “annuity.” Many financial advisors sell them as if they’re life preservers. But they’re usually filled with holes.
Variable annuities, for example, are widely oversold. An advisor might croon, “These products guarantee that you won’t lose money. They’re also linked to the stock market. So when stocks rise, the value of the annuity rises too.” In 2005, columnist Scott Burns published, Seven Reasons To Avoid Variable Annuities. Today, his logic hasn’t lost its sting. Investors pay stratospheric charges, averaging 2.24 percent per year. That hurts investment returns. Variable annuities can also attract unnecessary taxes. And if investors withdraw early, they usually pay stiff exit penalties.
Fixed-income annuities, however, look more attractive to retirees. Here’s how most of them work: You pay an insurance company a lump sum. In exchange, they provide a regular income stream for life. It’s much like buying a defined benefit pension. But in most cases, there’s no upward adjustment to cover inflation. *
Regards,
Ted
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/should-you-buy-a-fixed-income-annuity-for-retirement

Sold out of most mama's fidelity equities positions at openings . Will Add more Fbnd and fidelity2015 TDF

The fund companies finally realized that one size does not fit all, so they've got multiple series of TDFs.
Would your Fidelity 2015 fund be:
FFVFX (Freedom® 2015), that "Seeks high total return until its target retirement date. Thereafter, the fund's objective will be to seek high current income and, as a secondary objective, capital appreciation"?
Or FLIFX (Freedom® Index 2015), that "Seeks high total return until its target retirement date. Thereafter, the fund's objective will be to seek high current income and, as a secondary objective, capital appreciation"?
Or FIRUX (Simplicity RMD 2015), that "seeks total return until its horizon date through a combination of current income and capital growth. Thereafter, the fund's objective will be to seek high current income and, as a secondary objective, capital appreciation"?

M*'s write, IMHO; is full of fluff and touchy/feely words.
While RMD requirements would change (for the good), basically; the tax revenue raised by reducing the stretch period will subsidize the other programs.
So, taking from much of the middle class, NO; I'll change that to "working class" who have tried their best to save for retirement, and if the spouse(s) pass before using all of their tax sheltered account monies..............well, the children or whomever will get the tax whack. I'm not writing about the ultra wealthy, but the regular folks.
I questioned (shortly after the passing of the house version) our U.S. rep. about the nature of this transfer of wealth for the working class; but have not had a reply yet, and they are still on break.
Better overview of SECURE ACT.