There's probably less of a story here than what it appears. I bet the survey is skewed towards people who are saving for a retirement that is years away. Retirees likely would not give the same answer if they have shifted to a lower risk profile because they couldn't square such a high real return forecast with the reality of today's interest rate regime.
Nick de Peyster
http://undervaluedstocks.info

Hi Guys,
Not only are investors far too optimistic of the level of near term return likelihoods, but their financial advisors are too optimistic also. It is not likely that the average portfolio will deliver the 5.9% returns over inflation that the professional advisors are currently projecting.
Given our low GDP growth rate of about 1%, the odds are against the good times that our advisor class is forecasting. The current GDP and irs coupled productivity growth rates are more than two times below our historical average. The other contributor to annual returns, the market's P/E ratio level, is far above its historical average, so the most probable direction for that contributor is downward, a regression-to-it's-mean movement which will subtract from returns.
Both these returns factors suggest muted near term equity returns, not necessarily negative, but perhaps a factor of two below the historical returns. This forecasting method, which has long been advocated by John Bogle, is not highly accurate for any given year, but it does a very respectable forecasting job over a timeframe like a decade.
According to that returns equation, expect muted equity returns, even below those endorsed by the reported financial advisor wizards. Retirement dates might need to be delayed for those assuming near historical equity market returns. That's not a high probability future. Sorry about that, but that's the way the cards are likely (never a guaranteed outcome) to play out in the next decade.
Best Wishes.

http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/retirement/what-would-tom-brady-do-how-to-win-your-retirement-finance-game-by-playing-offense-not-defense/
Wells Fargo study shows that many 401(k) plan members play defense with their accounts. Data shows you build a bigger nest by playing offense. Here's how to do it sensibly.

Not sure I understand the premise of the articles. Most POPULAR fund for YOUR retirement?
All it means is the Funds are available in most 401k plans, no? That does not make them popular, just because people have no choice but to buy them in the absence of another from similar category. That also does not mean they are for us.
Regarding Ad Blocker, it should have a "stop blocking for 10 minutes" option. Every page I visit on Kiplinger I don't want to have to say "don't block on this page". Nuisance.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1376720/000139834416019748/fp0022085_497.htm
497 1 fp0022085_497.htm
STEWART CAPITAL MID CAP FUND
(a series of Stewart Capital Mutual Funds)
Supplement dated October 19, 2016 to
the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated May 1, 2016
This Supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectus and SAI and should be read in conjunction with the Prospectus and SAI. This Supplement supersedes any information to the contrary in the Prospectus, SAI, and the Supplement filed September 27, 2016.
The Board of Trustees of Stewart Capital Mutual Funds has concluded that it is in the best interests of Stewart Capital Mid Cap Fund (the “Fund”) and the Fund’s shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on or before November 18, 2016 (the “Redemption Date”).
On September 27, 2016, the Fund stopped accepting new investments and stopped pursuing its stated investment objective. The Fund will liquidate its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. Any required distributions of income and capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash. Shares of the Fund are otherwise not available for purchase.
Prior to or on the Redemption Date, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Fund Shares” section in the Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, a redemption is subject to tax on any taxable gains. Please refer to the “Dividends, Distributions and Taxes” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO THE REDEMPTION DATE WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THE REDEMPTION DATE AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund at (877) 420-4440.
This Supplement and the existing Prospectus dated May 1, 2016, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated May 1, 2016, have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by visiting www.stewartcap.com or calling the Fund at (877) 420-4440.

FYI: These mutual funds have the most assets under management in 401(k) plans, according to BrightScope.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T047-C009-S003-105-most-popular-funds-for-your-retirement-savings.html

@BobC: I think that while the retirement accounts are the only ones currently affected, the changes will go through the entire brokerage/advisory business model forcing many commissioned advisers leave the industry/ retire.

Yes, seems likely the predation will pick up several notches on the non-retirement side to make up for the losses on the retirement side.

Oh, yeah. And remember the 1,000+ pages of the new regs were crafted by....you guessed it...attorneys! Yes, the rules are supposed to establish a "fiduciary" standard. But already, there is legislation to allow annuities back into the picture (think dollars from insurance companies and banks). And the solution for a number of companies, like ML, is to adjust their IRA business but continue to sell commission products and charge commissions for the non-retirement business. There will for sure be some fallout of the really egregious stuff, but I would not be surprised to see more and more adjustments to the rules like the annuity provision just passed. Meanwhile, independent RIA's who have been running fiduciary programs for years, must devote more and more hours to paperwork and other documentation. Between the DOL, the SEC, FINRA, and each state's regulators, the rules and requirements continue to multiply, many times contradicting each other.

@LLJB- In thinking on this a little more I recall that American has a sliding load scale for their A funds based upon the total amount invested with the company (I'm not informed as to any other classes). That "total amount" includes multiple funds held in both retirement and non-retirement accounts by a married couple. Another issue is that American reinvests dividends and gains without any load, whereas some other load funds charge the same load on re-investments (or at least they used to, from personal experience).
That makes it problematical for comparative load-adjusted returns, since the loads themselves would vary all over the map depending upon the situation. Still, a footnote for the worst-case load would be of some help, and I definitely agree that front-load funds should be "on their way out": the competitive market conditions now are nothing like they were 20 or 30 years ago.

Merrill Edge isn't affected - no advice provided.
From a column I linked to in another thread:
"Merrill plans to encourage its retirement clients to consult with their advisor about whether to move their brokerage IRA accounts to Merrill Lynch One [wrap account] ... adding that another alternative for investors is the brokerage’s self-directed and guided investing channels offered via Merrill Edge."
http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2016/10/07/dol-fiduciary-rule-forces-merrill-to-drop-commissi

gah, must investigate effect on ML accounts (retirement and nonretirement brokerage) currently w/ zero fees / commissions.

As mentioned earlier, politics is all over the new DOL regs. Just last week, the Senate Finance Committee unanimously approved legislation that would make it easier for advisors/retirement plan sponsors to add annuities to their programs. The bill would provide safe harbor from lawsuits. If you want to know how things happen in Washington, just follow the money. Note the legislation passed the committee unanimously. So much for these folks looking out for the public's best interest. Instead they fatten their own campaign chests and give another pass to the insurance/banking/brokerage industry. No wonder most citizens distrust Washington.

FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
Every financial advisor in the country has been debating the Department of Labor's new fiduciary rule, arguing about whether or not it's really good for investors. For my part, I’m on the record here and here saying that the rule -- which requires brokers who work with retirement accounts to put their clients’ financial interests ahead of their own -- is a boon for investors.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-10-11/thank-you-merrill-lynch

BobC, you wrote that the DOL rules do not apply to ordinary IRAs.
"DOL rule & regs. Remember they apply to 401k rollovers, not regular IRAs and personal accounts. "
That was just plain wrong. BICE may not apply to some vanilla IRAs, but that's not what the regs are about. The regs are about holding advisors of ERISA and IRA accounts to a fiduciary standard.
In fact, BICE is, as the 'E' states, a set of exemptions to the fiduciary standard. So if BICE doesn't apply to vanilla IRAs, that means that those IRAs are held to an even higher standard, i.e. one without exemptions.
"A number of attorneys will tell you that moving 401ks to level-fee accounts does not remove the BICE form ..."
Even ML agrees with that. BICE is required for moving 401ks, but only for moving the accounts and not not for maintaining the level-fee accounts once established. From the ThinkAdvisor article I cited:

Merrill says that it will not use the Best Interest Contract exemption “to service or support ongoing IRA brokerage account activity.” However, “when appropriate, we will use this exemption to recommend enrollments in our Investment Advisory Program from a retirement client’s IRA brokerage accounts, or rollovers from ERISA 401(k) plans.”

The original DOL proposal would have done away with commission-based accounts. If the big boys want everyone in wrap accounts anyway, and the big boys wrote all the rules, how did we get a final version that restored commissions?

When the DOL initially floated this proposal in 2010, it stated that fiduciaries could not be paid on commission. Since then, however, it has bowed to pressure and admitted commission-based schemes as long as the broker signs an agreement stating that the advice is given in the customer’s best interest.

http://ibd.morningstar.com/article/article.asp?id=718083&CN=brf295,http://ibd.morningstar.com/archive/archive.asp?inputs=days=14;frmtId=12, brf295
As far as level of detail goes, on the one hand, the regulations are not short; on the other they don't spell everything out to the penny (e.g. what constitutes reasonable compensation). Should the regs be even longer and more detailed, or shorter and potentially subject to more litigation?
I'll stick with Voltaire on this one - the perfect is the enemy of the good. Things will sort themselves out over time. Having a fiduciary rule is better than not having one.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/215866-le-mieux-est-l-ennemi-du-bien-the-perfect-is-the

No confusion on my part. The b/d community, especially the second-tier companies like State Farm, found their bread and butter in 401k rollovers. The big BDs like ML have essentially dropped clients with small-value accounts already. IRA or 401k or other qualified plan, they won't deal with the average investor. The impact for most BDs is the rollover, not IRAs in general. The DOL intent is one thing, but it is no accident that their effect is pretty small on the big guys, but potentially very hard on the smaller BDs. Why else would the MLs have said they could live with the new regs. They have pretty much already adjusted their business lines, or could go that route without disrupting their bottom line too much.
ERISA regs may have said that 401k plan advisors had to act as fiduciaries, but we all know many 401k plan investment options have been ludicrous at best, with all sorts of hidden fees, trail commissions, and other goodies that benefit the BDs and the reps. As we already know, many investment company 401k plans have options that are only their own funds or mostly just their funds. So the existing ERISA regs have been ignored for a long time. But that's off topic.
A number of attorneys will tell you that moving 401ks to level-fee accounts does not remove the BICE form, that it will still be required to prove the three standards I mentioned in my previous post. The big question is what is "reasonable compensation". Of course that is not defined and is thus open to a range of interpretations.
The smaller guys, many of which have no "advised" or "fee" brokerage accounts to begin with and do not have the infrastructure to go that route, are the ones to take the brunt of new regs. Again, I do not believe this was entirely unintentional. They simply do not have the bucks to pay lobbyists anywhere close to the big boys. So their influence on the new regs was in many cases next to nothing.
Keep in mind the regs are packed into more than 1,000 pages (only our wonderful federal government could do this), and of course there is no coordination with the SEC/FINRA/State regs, and there is no enforcement of the new rules, except for anticipated future lawsuits. This is all a long way from over, as the many federal agencies fight over who will regulate whom in the advisory business.
Your comment on ML keeping commissions on non-qualified accounts raises another issue, and begs the question: "If commissions are not fiduciary in nature for retirement accounts, how are they fiduciary in nature for other accounts?" Obviously they are not, but investors are expected to swallow that camel since non-disclosure will remain part of that process. In the meantime, ML and other big wirehouses are forcing their reps to jettison "smaller" clients so they can move more and more accounts to "fee" accounts.
Like our friend Vintage, I am more cynical as I age, and I am cynical about this whole DOL thing. To think for one moment there were no politics involved is silly. While the result of the regs is having some positive results (like State Farm's decision), I have no doubt that money still talks in Washington, and folks like ML and other biggies will see a rather small impact on their business. They will keep shedding skins and re-naming what they do.

@Sven, I agree. Right now in the FI space, I like Ivascyn (PIMIX, PDIIX, PDI), Gundlach (DBLFX, ADLIX) and WHAIX (available at TDAmeritrade for no minimum in retirement accounts with TF). Nothing else.
Kevin

A few comments.
First, I like rforno liked the old format better; but, since the content is great I'll adjust to the new.
Second, I found Charles' Balcony of interest this month. If I was just starting out as a retail investor and was going to have only one account that comprised my whole portfolio then the three fund portfolio makes good sense. However, the way the government has structured retirement savings and investing in general a good number of folks like myself wind up with multiple accounts. At work, I had a 401k, a profit sharing, health savings and then my own self directed ira plus an individual investment account. Folks that is five accounts. Some might have more as my broker wanted me to open a roth ira. If each account holds about eight mutual funds then this comes to forty positions. Some accounts may or may not have common investment options. In real life the three fund portfolio, for me, did not exist.
Since, the three fund portfolio was not a viable option I developed a sleeve management system to compile my multiple accounts into a portfolio which currently conists of forty seven funds split among eleven investment sleeves plus two cash management sleeves. I would indeed like to see something written that schools investors how to compile and manage multi accounts with each account hosting a good number of funds. For me that is real life. In addition, cover something on adaptive allocation and how one might incorporate this into their investment positioning.
Thanks again for a great monthly read.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1376720/000139834416018968/fp0021776_497.htm
497 1 fp0021776_497.htm
STEWART CAPITAL MID CAP FUND
(a series of Stewart Capital Mutual Funds)
Supplement dated September 27, 2016 to
the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated May 1, 2016
The Board of Trustees of Stewart Capital Mutual Funds has concluded that it is in the best interests of Stewart Capital Mid Cap Fund (the “Fund”) and the Fund’s shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on or before December 31, 2016. You will be notified in writing of the date selected (the “Redemption Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments and will no longer pursue its stated investment objective. The Fund will liquidate its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. Any required distributions of income and capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash. Shares of the Fund are otherwise not available for purchase.
Prior to or on the Redemption Date, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Fund Shares” section in the Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, a redemption is subject to tax on any taxable gains. Please refer to the “Dividends, Distributions and Taxes” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO THE REDEMPTION DATE WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THE REDEMPTION DATE AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund at (877) 420-4440.
This Supplement and the existing Prospectus dated May 1, 2016, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated May 1, 2016, have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by visiting www.stewartcap.com or calling the Fund at (877) 420-4440.

SS doesn't figure prominently into my retirement planning much since who knows how much I'll get (or what's in the SS fund!) when I reach that age ... as such, whatever I might get when I do retire will be an 'extra' and be appreciated at the time.

At some point I think SS will basically be taxed away if you make over a certain amount of money.