HI folks,
I wonder if I could ask for the board's advice on how to identify a good fee-only financial planner. I have had an initial meeting with an advisor at Merrill Lynch and he seems to be good. However, he only provides financial planning if I turn over my assets to him. He will create a financial plan and then charge me 1% for assets under management on an ongoing basis. I'm not sure that I want to go that route. I need to do some retirement planning that will evaluate my financial picture with the intention of retiring in 10 years. But I'm more of a buy and hold investor. I think that I might want to go the route of working with a financial planner who can develop the plan but that I would continue to manage my own assets. I'm not sure that the ongoing fee of paying 1% for someone else to manage my assets is worth it. I'd value your thoughts on how to identify a good planner. If anyone has had good experience with someone in the Washington DC area please message me.. Thank you.

Mark, because more often than not I have my entire nest egg at risk in one or two bond funds, Back in the days It was the same way when I traded open end equity sector funds. At this point in my life though I can’t handle the volatility associated with bond CEFs and ETFs. A 1% drawdown in my nest egg is a big deal to me and represents more than a half year of living expenses. There is also a one day lag at times between the action in the ETFs late in the trading day when major adverse/favorable news hits the markets. I can use that to my advantage if necessary as the NAV of the open end bond funds aren’t normally affected until the next day. December 16, 2008 comes to mind of such a day and one I will never forget.
catch, I am an agnostic on most traditional technical indicators especially when it comes to bond funds. There is one though I monitor real closely and use for entries but not exits though. But that is a story for another time.
Edit: Actually the major reason I don’t fool with CEFs and ETFs is it prevents me from making bonehead intraday trading moves in my positions. No exaggeration, I would estimate my retirement nest egg would be half of its present value had I been allowed to react to intraday trading news during the trading day. In other words, the open end funds force discipline upon me. Admittedly an odd statement coming from someone who originally daytraded stock index futures which became the building block for my nest egg in the first place.

This is such a great thread ... It would be nice if someone would start hosting it again. I did it for a couple of years and felt ... Well, it was time to pass it on to another ... Wonder what happened to @pudnhead?

@Old_Skeet,
Re The Pudd - Don’t know - But I like to think he got it right with one of his typical “long shots” and won a ton of money. I’d guess he’s out relaxing somewhere on the sun-deck of his 200-foot yacht mid-Atlantic and out of reach of any communications. Or, he might be reading the board somewhere and laughing at those of us still striving to make the perfect call.
Of course, anyone is free to post their recent trades at any time, regardless of the BOS thread. I’ll say I do enjoy reading your normally very thorough weekly commentaries, although my approach is far less complex - perhaps because I hold maybe a quarter the number of funds you do. Was wondering whether you posted this weekend? Perhaps I missed seeing it?
Personally, I’m in the distance out from retirement phase (I guess similar to an Apollo flight out on the far side of the moon) and so don’t take much risk. I’m also leary of this long term bull and geopolitical environment and rising rate scenario. Still sitting with a stable Core weighting just over 75%; about 19.8% in short-term near cash-equivalency funds; and a little over 5% in an equity fund. That’s not as Draconian as it sounds, since within that Core are some moderate risk funds like DODBX, RPGAX, OAKBX, PRPFX - along with a slice of mining, real estate and global infrastructure.
Last week I switched my real estate holding from Oppenheimer (OREAX) to Price (TRREX) for no good reason except that my accounts are held directly through the fund companies. While the performances are near identical, it had the effect of burning some excess cash at Price and building a bit at Oppenheimer which might be put to good use there should market valuations drop. Oppenheimer has a slightly more aggressive near cash equivalancy fund in OUSGX which might yield a percent better longer term than TRBUX which I use at Price. And the transaction gave me a chance to toss a few more dollars into my depressed gold fund, OPGSX - literally pennies, because I consider gold too volatile to speculate on - though continue to like it longer term. Except for that minor rearranging of deck chairs, nothing cooking.

@Junkster, can you point toward the book and magazine articles? If you are up a mil over simple SP500 (is this only a few percent of total assets?) in this bull market (and why were you working at all??), this 71yo would like to study up. Will also send you all my moneys and beg you to take on, or guide.

A few here are aware of the book etc. it was written long ago is outdated and I don’t recommend purchase. My point was what was I to do with only $76,000 in lifetime contributions to my IRA?Invest it in an S&P index fund? Instead I had to think outside of the box if I ever wanted to have a respectable nest egg for retirement.

FYI: (The Linkster took an early retirement in 1992 after a 28 year career with the Chicago School's.)
(This is a follow-up article.)
The Chicago Teachers’ Pension Fund’s board of trustees voted on Friday to phase out investments in companies that run private prisons or immigrant detention centers, saying the businesses have an outsized negative impact on minorities and the poor.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-education-pensions-chicago/chicago-teachers-pension-fund-divesting-from-private-prisons-idUSKBN1L229H

Still have 12-15 yrs ahead before retirement probably can afford another recession or Two... Full speed ahead I guess .. buy equities bonds and stocks like previously

I believe the amount is tied to what is equal to an deductible/non-deductible retirement account. I believe it was $6K initially. Maximum investment amount initially advertised was $100K, but due to overwhelming interest, maximum investment was lowered to $50K to appease investors.
From the 2015 Allocation email:
"Thank you for your interest in our new Global Micro Cap Fund (GPMCX). As anticipated, requests from current Grandeur Peak Fund shareholders far exceeded our $25 million target. During the Indication of Interest window we received requests totaling over $85 million. We have allocated the available $25M across all parties who expressed interest. Our allocation objective was to be fair and consistent across shareholders and to allow all interested shareholders an opportunity to purchase the Fund. We capped larger requests at a consistent level in order to keep our total allocation to around $25M. Keeping the Fund at this very small size will allow us to be fairly unconstrained as we look for interesting micro-cap investments across the globe.
,,,We will hold your allocation through October 30, 2015, so please ensure all trades are placed by that date. If you wish to set up an automatic investment plan, you may do so, but the maximum purchase size is $500/month (this amount can be in addition to your stated allocation). Unlike our other hard closures, retirement accounts will not have unlimited access to make future purchases in this Fund. Retirement accounts will be capped at $6000/year for future purchases."
From the most recent prospectus:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834417011117/fp0027624_485bpos.htm
PURCHASE AND SALE OF FUND SHARES
As of the close of business on December 31, 2016, the Fund is closed to both new and existing investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund either directly or through third party intermediaries, subject to certain exceptions for participants in certain qualified retirement plans with an existing position in the Fund and direct shareholders with existing accounts who may purchase up to the amount of the current IRA catch up limit per year in additional shares, regardless of account type. The Fund’s investment adviser retains the ability, subject to the oversight of the Board, to make exceptions to any action taken to close the Fund or limit inflows into the Fund.

Now I've heard everything "modernize" a "rule".
Reminds me of a ... I met once who didn't understand when I told him I'd set up a "file server" in my house for the past 20 years. His blank stare turned to englightenment when I said I have a "private cloud".
On another note, isn't someone publishing an article on this topic every other week? I really don't understand why anyone has to be obsessing about 4% or 7%. You live in retirement based on how much money you have saved up and you withdraw based on how much you are required to because of RMD.

@davidrmoran,
As for inflation, a well diversified portfolio (especially equities) should inflate with inflation...one would hope. TIPS inflate by external means (posted by the government), but equities over time should inflate as a reflection of "equity inflation"..much like Real Estate inflates over time.
I wonder if inflation adjustments, with regard to retirement withdrawals, should be derived as a reflection of these embedded inflationary elements of one's portfolio rather than a fictitious derived number that may or may not be reflective of one's portfolio. Keeping up with inflation requires a portfolio that at least inflates proportionally with external inflation. If it doesn't, these external inflation adjustments could prematurely wipe out a portfolio.
To me RMD is an interesting alternative to the 4%, 4.5%, etc rule. As you age RMD withdrawal percentages increase (as a result of amortization not inflation). The RMD withdrawal method can be tailored to a starting age other than 70.5.
I believe a retirement portfolio's biggest challenge is adjusting withdrawals for prolonged market downturns that are also accompanied by rising inflation. An RMD withdrawal schedule accommodate this possible scenario, but a fix withdrawal plus additive inflation adjustments may not.

I'd been holding these in my back pocket (meant to post, hadn't gotten around to it):
Ed Slott's column from a month ago:
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/irs-finally-says-back-door-roth-s-are-ok-39697.html
Yale Law and Policy Review, Spring 2017, Slam the Door: Why Congress Should End the Backdoor Roth IRA
https://ylpr.yale.edu/inter_alia/slam-door-why-congress-should-end-backdoor-roth-ira

Congress was aware at the time of the backdoor Roth IRA’s passage that it would not facilitate greater retirement savings, particularly for those households for which increasing savings is most critical. As Brookings Fellow Peter Orszag warned Congress in 2005, “[r]ather than bolstering retirement security among middle- and lower-earners, proposals to increase income and contribution limits would generate significant asset shifting and be of primary benefit to households who are already disproportionately well-prepared for retirement.”[31] Instead, the driving force behind the backdoor Roth IRA was the need to facilitate the extension of capital gains and dividends rate cuts.[32]

FYI: Christine Benz interviews Ed Slott. Eight years after their arrival, backdoor Roth IRAs are alive and well. Joining Christine to discuss the maneuver is IRA expert Ed Slott. He is author of the newly revised "Retirement Decisions Guide."
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/videos/878097/backdoor-roth-ira-conversions-alive-and-well.html

Most of these wrap accounts seem pretty similar, and as davidrmoran noted, the fee is typical. So what follows is not a criticism of Merrill Lynch in particular, so much as observations about these plans in general. They do work well for many people.
SEC, Investor Bulletin: Investment Adviser Sponsored Wrap Fee Programs
https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-and-bulletins/ib_wrapfeeprograms

[highlighted section] Tip: ... But if there is little or no trading activity in your advisory account or the trades being made would not otherwise have a transaction fee, a wrap fee arrangement may cost more than separately paying for the services. You should check your account statements to review the level of trading, and periodically talk to your adviser about the level of trading in your account, the fees involved, and what sort of account makes sense for you. Of course, there may be considerations other than cost, like access to certain managers, that make a wrap fee program right for you.

Merrill Lynch INVESTMENT ADVISORY PROGRAM WRAP FEE PROGRAM BROCHURE, March 26, 2018
https://olui2.fs.ml.com/publish/ESIGN_EXPAN/TandC/MSGDisclosure.pdf

We address conflicts from this compensation in a variety of ways, including the disclosure of the conflicts in this Brochure. Moreover, our Advisors are required to recommend investment advisory programs, investment products and securities that are suitable for each client

All of the links that people posted here to questions to ask include the question: is there a fiduciary relationship. "Suitability" is a term used to indicate that the advisor isn't a fiduciary. I hope your specific client agreement does require your advisor to act as a fiduciary.

as a general rule, we only include for purchase in the Program and other Merrill Lynch securities accounts a mutual fund share class that provides for a payment to be made by the mutual fund to one of our Affiliates for providing certain ...services.... The manager of a particular mutual fund may have a fund share class that does [not pay for these services]. Accordingly, you should not assume that you will be invested in the share class with the lowest possible expense ratio that the mutual fund provider makes available to the investing public. ... As a result of such Fund-Related Compensation, we may have a conflict of interest in selecting certain mutual funds for inclusion in the Program over others.

That would explain why as @slick noted, you'll have problems getting Vanguard funds.
Note that in retirement accounts (IRAs, 401(k)s, etc.) an advisor must give you credit for any 12b-1 fees and management fees paid by a fund that is run by (in this case) Merrill Lynch or affiliate. But not for 12b-1 fees paid by any other funds.

I retired from USAF back in 2008. What money I had tied up in TSP even though the management fees were really cheap, I rolled it all over to Vanguard. I don’t know how Federal retirement works, but with military retirement you get medical care, dental and vision. I have it deducted out of military retirement check. Of course there are deductibles of going to the doctor unless your have a disabled rating from VA, in which case if your over 30% disabled you can go VA but your family would be covered under Tricare.

MikeW,
Will you be able to keep the Thrift Savings Plan?
Often, at retirement, these plans can no longer be contributed to and may also have to be transferred out of the Thrift Savings Plan. This was the case for a relative who work for a government employer (military) who recently retired a few months ago.

I'm not that familiar with TSP (all I know is what I read in the papers). Still, the situation you're describing sounds unusual.
TSP holds itself out as " similar to a 401(k) plan in the private sector." In the private sector, by law you must be allowed to keep your money in your 401(k) so long as you have at least $5K there.
Many plans allow you to keep your money even if you have a lesser amount. With TSP, "If your vested account balance is $200 or more, you can leave your entire account with the TSP until the account withdrawal deadline." The deadline it's talking about is just the usual rule that RMDs begin the later of age 70.5 or separation from service.
https://www.tsp.gov/PlanParticipation/LoansAndWithdrawals/withdrawals/index.html
It's pretty obvious that someone who is not working for an employer cannot make payroll contributions to that employer's sponsored plan (TSP, 401(k), 403(b), etc.) But TSP seems very flexible in the types of other post-retirement contributions it allows.
It accepts rollovers from IRAs and transfers from retirement plans at other employers. "Not only can you leave your money with the TSP, you can simplify your financial life by moving money from plans into your TSP account." However, it doesn't look like it can accommodate Roth money, as it limits IRA rollovers to traditional IRAs.
https://www.tsp.gov/PlanParticipation/EligibilityAndContributions/RolloversTransfers/index.html

@MikeW,
Will you be able to keep the Thrift Savings Plan?
Often, at retirement, these plans can no longer be contributed to and may also have to be transferred out of the Thrift Savings Plan. This was the case for a relative who work for a government employer (military) who recently retired a few months ago.
Any health care benefits for retirees?
Any life insurance choices?
Any death benefits for spouse/dependents?

Not often mentioned, but another planning topic is your debt to income ratio. Prior to retirement I had very good credit (partly due to my low debt to a higher working income). This "debt to income ratio" will change instantly in the first months of retirement...probably due to a lower income... and as a result your credit score may suffer. More importantly you will qualify for less credit.
I applied for a 30 year mortgage (actually a 15/15 ARM @ a rate of 2.875 fixed for the first 15 years) and also took additional cash out on this loan. I planned to use the cash for home improvements that I knew I now had time to do myself (retirement offers time to do this) as well as serve as a on demand cash for opportunities. Another story for another time, but cash was king back in 2010.
This decision to refinance my home loan prior to retirement effectively locked in my principle/interest payments for 15 years into retirement and since I completed this process while I was still working I qualified for a much larger mortgage due to my higher "debt to income ratio".

Take a close look at the retirement benefits that are being offered through your government employer. Ten years may be a bit off in the future, but start paying attention to what's being offered now and what might be on the chopping block.
Employers usually have a retirement packet that they share with new retirees. Gather as much information about the retirement process with your employer. I did this and discovered there were many choices I needed to consider with this part of retirement planning. In my case, I selected to move some of my 403b investment to purchase an "extra annuity" through my employer (a somewhat unique option). I shared this option with a few financial planners and they confirmed that using some of these 403b dollars to buy this annuity was a very good option. I fine tuned the amount of the "extra annuity" based on my projected retirement income needs.
These financial planners typically will not be experts on all the options that your employer offers...it's your job to bring these choices/options for discussion.

I was hoping to request some advice. I am meeting with a new financial planner today to do some retirement plannig and review our investment portfolio. I'm about 10 years from retirement and will have a government pension. I'm interested in the planner providing recommendations on asset allocation and steps we should take to achieve our goals. I would value the board's suggestions on questions I should ask the planner or links to such questions. The planner works for Merrill so I'm sure he will be recommending their various products. Our situation is a little complicated in that we have a special needs son that we need to plan for. Thanks so much for your advice.

The two funds I mentioned now have $1 million minimums and are closed. I bought them when Fidelity had $2500 minimum for retirement accounts, so I'm hesitant to exit my positions.

... I personally have decided to use the S&P 500 and stop further in depth allocations such as much discussed finer granular reits, mlp's, utilities etc. S&P500 contains all of the aforementioned within the index. ... The argument can be made for more granularity outperforming the S&P500, but i will live with the simple solution. I like the fact mutual funds can easily reinvest dividends/cap gains if needed while some ETF's cannot (easily). I also like the fact that by the nature of the SP500 index it gradually picks the winners for me and discards the losers. just my 2c.

Hi shipwreckedandalone,
Thanks for commenting. (Worth a lot more than 2c). All valid points. It’s not clear to me whether this represents a portion of your total invested assets or all of them. I suspect it’s the former. That said, I don’t think the argument for real estate or any other granular asset class rests only on maximizing return. There may be other considerations like diversifying assets (and hopefully mitigating risk), increasing income stream, hedging against the unexpected (rampant inflation, depression, war, tax law changes, etc.)
If I were age 25-40 and gainfully employed I’d be inclined to put 100% into growth (even possibly the S&P 500) and let her ride come Hell or high-water. A single fund (2 or 3 at most) would work fine. Even at age 40-50 that might make sense - but would require a stronger risk appetite. At 70 or older (with perhaps a 20-year life expectancy I believe an all-growth portfolio foolhearty, unless one is trying to build assets for posterity (estate planning). In that case, long as your own funding is assured for your lifetime, a 100% growth portfolio might still make sense.
To glean an appreciation of how much a 100% S&P 500 investment can fall in a relatively short time we need go back hardly more than a single decade (from Wikepedia): “The US bear market of 2007–2009 was a 17-month bear market that lasted from October 9th 2007 to March 9th 2009, during the financial crisis of 2007-2009. The S&P 500 lost approximately 50% of its value.”
Now - to sit still and endure the pain for 17 consecutive months while watching your total investment egg fall by 50% takes a great deal of intestinal fortitude. And, remember that on March 8, 2009 after 17 months of free-fall, there was no guarantee the market would reverse direction. History has taught that these downturns can persist for much longer. If an index can tumble 50% in 17 months ... it can just as easily fall 60 or 70% over a longer time. No law says it has to stop at 50%. (It’s likely real estate fared even worse during that period.)
In a nutshell, it depends a great deal on your life situation and ability to endure punishment. I think all of us could do a better job relating our age and years to / into retirement when discussing our allocations. One size does not fit all. Such understanding might benefit the younger newbies - if any.
PS: Just my humble mumble. I am not a qualified advisor. Other points of view welcomed.