Hi Guys,
In the referenced article, The Economist reports that the tide has finally turned in terms of active fund management. Active fund management is losing market share. It’s about time! It has been statistically established that professional money managers have been swimming naked for a long time.
Yes there are a few rare exceptions, but the bulk of the money management community have indeed generated excessive royal rewards for themselves, but not much for their customers, either individually or institutionally. It is common knowledge that passive Index investing has left these experts high and dry on the beach of under-delivered promises.
These experts promise excess returns (Alpha) over benchmarks and do not produce. In any given year 50% to 70% do not match their benchmarks; when the measurement timeframe expands to multiple years that underperformance increases to the 80% to 90% level. That’s true even in the Emerging markets sector where these guys are supposedly at an advantage. That’s a sad record.
It’s not that these experts have not had an opportunity to display their talents. Aggressive active investment organizations that were established to specifically service institutions (like company retirement funds) were assembled in the 1960s. According to some industry historians, these newly formed firms were motivated by the success of the Dreyfus Lion prowling out of the New York subway exit. Dreyfus was attracting tons of money.
In those days, individual investors did 90% of the trading activity; today, a few giant money management firms do 90% of that trading. At a minimum, these experts interact to cancel any of each other’s perceived investment insights and/or tactics. In fact, any such insights are more than neutralized by their operational cost drags.
Most money managers fail to satisfy their extravagant promises by not meeting their benchmark goals. Integrating globally, the active money managers who are on the negative side of the measurement criteria lose more on a percentage basis than those on the positive side of that balance sheet that incrementally gain against that same criteria. Now that’s a practical Loser’s game!!
So after these many decades, even the investing institutions, the preferred customers in terms of profit potential, are slowly learning the lesson that many private investors learned much earlier. The California pension fund, CALPERS, has finally reduced the number and the resource commitments to active fund managers. The shortfalls of active fund management has ultimately prompted even these moribund sleeping institutional giants into some action.
Good for them, good for their clients, not so good for the professional money managers. Their services do warrant some payoff, but their investment decisions have been a disaster. They have earned a pay-cut, and that’s now happening. We do learn, although far too slowly.
Best Wishes.

@johnN
What say you??? Do you have a date in mind? Do you suspect that real estate will crash again leading to other problems; or perhaps other problems will lead to an eventual weakening in real estate.
Below is a 2014 short write about baby boomer trends. This group likely holds a lot of real estate at this time. What will happen to this real estate when the boomers leave the planet?
Still location, location, location??? I suspect location is still very important. 'Course, this continues to have a direct link to "work" and "wages", eh? Now, your part of the world has some areas literally "under water". What is this doing for real estate prices today?
Real estate prices in general may remain static and not "crash" again. A crash presumes a fall from some over elevated level, yes??? How long before the 35% or so, of 18-35 year olds move out of their parents homes to pressure real estate prices?
Lots of questions.
What do the doom and gloom web sites predict?
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2014/07/22/12-baby-boomer-retirement-trends

Good news? Has any one noticed a steady upward trend in the NAV of this controversial fund? I've invested a good chunk of my retirement savings in this fund. Despite the setbacks and negative ROI, I held on to the investment. It now appears that the patience of investors may be rewarded. The YTD return is 2.30%. If the trend holds, I may breakeven before the yearend.

Good Day to You,
When I was seventeen, it was a very good year.....or so the lyric goes.
Well, 17 was a long time ago for this one. Now to begin to leave one of my active lovers.
If one is of the mind, passion and spirit for investing; the rewards, satisfaction and a form of love may leave a smile upon the face. While 50 ways (reasons) are not needed to leave an investing lover, one will likely determine a few key personal points.
Needless to say, the group here are not one's normal invest monies in a 401k, 403b, 457 or some form of IRA just to build a retirement account. We here tend to "fiddle" with whatever is available to our accounts.
Understanding/knowing the difference between being a passive or active investor is of value; as long as one also understands that he/she is likely active in managing choices which fall into a passive investment vehicle.
The exceptions that come to mind are when one uses an advisor, be it human or robo. But, one has still made an active choice about this, too.
So........the plan for this house for a total portfolio:
---75% VWINX , 65% IG bonds, 35% U.S. stocks, active managed
---15% FSPHX , healthcare, active managed; also included, DPLO (Diplomat Pharma stock)
---10% FRIFX , a different real estate active managed fund with a history of 50/50 stocks/bonds
We have a percentage of all of these now, but will sell other holdings to accommodate the above numbers.
For those interested, the below links present more information (click on the other tabs at the top, aside from these composition links:
--- VWINX , composition
This fund has superior returns for many years. Yes, it is subject to the markets not unlike any other fund.
--- FSPHX , composition
We still remain tilted towards the health sector and the many sectors within health related. Although this sector has been getting the whack during the past 6 or so months; our holdings average total return for the past several years remain most decent.
--- FRIFX , composition
You won't find an easy method for ranking in a category list for real estate, as this fund doesn't fit the normal holdings positions for this category, being about 50% bonds. As normal, we look for total return over a time frame; versus which fund is having the most fun, say, within a 1 or 2 year period.
--- DPLO , A specialty pharmacy. This company IPO'd in October of 2014. We purchased near the IPO price, having been very familiar with the quality of the organization during its 25 years of being private. We continue to hold this stock.
https://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/goto/evaluate/snapshot.jhtml?symbols=DPLO&type=o-NavBar
As we investors are always subject (or should be subject to change) to change, the following holdings will be liquidated; market conditions allowing (no black swans, etc. allowed), from some accounts outside of Fidelity.
---BRUIX , DPRRX , BAGIX , DGCIX , OPBYX , VIIIX , GPROX , PRHSX , HEDJ , FHLC , ITOT
NOTE: all monies are tax sheltered accounts without current tax implications
We'll arrive at a conservative/moderate balanced account holding. As with all individual investors, such mixes are subject to "the eyes of the beholder" function as to how the balance suits their needs and views. The investment mix is mostly biased towards U.S. markets and companies, although at this time; about 20% of the holdings relate to other than U.S. One would also expect these holdings to generate greater than 20% of earnings/yields from sources outside of the U.S. going forward and providing some international exposure by this method.
Lastly, a large core holding in VWINX may be reasonably argued to possibly cause harm to an overall portfolio going forward due to its large percentage holdings in IG bonds. The main argument being that IG bonds have had one heck of a run for much too long. One may suppose that the "odds" factor such an argument. I will note again the phrase "that this time is different" since the market melt of 2008. Of course it is, eh? We live in a most dynamic investing world. At the very least, central banks and related polices operate upon the egos of the members. Who in these groups would want to look bad in the eyes of financial history? I suspect the central banks will continue to surprise many making decisions based upon every available form of data mining to obtain desired outcomes. Our house is still "betting" upon the investment grade bonds. This is no less as scary as the equity markets discovering flaws in the system, not yet known. With VWINX as the example, an investor will reap 35% of the up or down of the given equity holdings and 65% of the up or down of the investment grade bond holdings for a "total" result.
Remain or become fully flexible and adaptable, not just to your perception of the investing marketplace; but more importantly, to and for yourself and those important in your life.
This "personal overview" is likely incomplete; but will suffice for the time being.
Comments welcomed.
Regards,
Catch

MJG said:
"It’s easy for me since it’s within my emotional and intellectual wheelhouse of action minimization style."-
MJG, That's the name of the game. You've been known to castigate (indirectly of course) those you think are shifting significant invested funds around often. I'd be willing to bet that most of those, including myself, are invested in a core of securities or mutual funds that are within their wheelhouse and that they make very few changes of consequence.
(There are a few here with particular skills and experience who don't fit that mold - but I could count those posters on the fingers of one hand. Kudos to that small group. They possess skills and temperament most of us lack.)
What you do observe from time to time MJG are people playing around the edges, tilting slightly towards a particular undervalued sector, adding a modicum of equity risk after big market sell-offs or reducing their portfolio's risk profile a trifle after achieving outsides gains or for other reasons. I recall that back in January you posted that you had reduced your equity exposure somewhat, citing advancing age as the chief reason. I had a feeling at the time that you had also turned a bit less optimistic regarding equities?
I've shared my approach before and don't wish to regurgitate. But in a nutshell, 80% entails a broadly diversified buy-and-hold strategy. Hell, I don't even rebalance within that area unless a component substantially exceeds/falls below a broad pre-set range. The remaining 20% is also mostly static, split between equities and fixed, but does allow for slight changes in emphasis based largely on perceptions of market valuation (which may be right or wrong) and also allows for the exceedingly rare short-term speculative investment where I might perceive opportunity.
Half-way through retirement I believe that retaining a small capacity to add or subtract market exposure reduces overall risk and better allows me to stay the course for the long run. I genuinely love reading and following the financial markets, so am comfortable with this type of playing around the edges. Others may not be so inclined. All of this is not to say that there aren't irrational posters who appear to buy and sell everything based on emotion, moon cycles or their predictive prowess. But they're rare here and deserve no attention.
Regards

The 2015 Annual Report gave an explanation for the deal as "a plan that aims to assist in [the funds'] continued growth and success, beyond [CEO Robert Killen's] retirement" - which will apparently be in 2018. Other than that paragraph in the report and subsequent proxy materials, communication with shareholders has been nearly nonexistent. The Berwyn Funds website made no reference to the acquisition; one day a Chartwell link showed up at the bottom of the page, and Chartwell showed up as the listed advisor. This month, I got transaction confirmations for the exchange of shares in the Berwyn Funds for shares in the (Chartwell) Berwyn Funds.
It's difficult to see what we get out of the deal other than a vague sense of a succession plan that had to go outside the fund advisor. Chartwell has agreed to waive fees above the ERs that Berwyn charged - until 2018. They have a different distributor and do not offer online access to our accounts. From what I can tell, what we gained was less service, the threat of higher expenses in a couple years, and new branding on our statements (which we can't get online).

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/870156/000087015616000085/s497.htm
497 1 s497.htm
STRATUS FUND, INC.
Supplement dated May 11, 2016 to the Prospectuses, dated October 31, 2015,regarding the Retail Class A Shares and the Institutional Class Shares, respectively, of the Government Securities Portfolio and Growth Portfolio (the “Portfolios”) of Stratus Fund, Inc.
The Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Stratus Fund, Inc. (the “Fund”) has determined that it is in the best interests of the shareholders of the Fund to liquidate and terminate the Fund. The laws of the Fund’s state of incorporation require the approval of a majority of the shareholders of each Portfolio to effect such a liquidation and termination. As such, the Board intends to call for a Special Meeting of Shareholders to be held on or about June 7, 2016.
If the liquidation of the Fund is approved by a majority of the shareholders of each Portfolio, the Fund will cease accepting purchase orders from new or existing investors, except for the reinvestment of dividends, effective as of the close of the New York Stock Exchange on that date. The liquidation is expected to be effective on or about June 10, 2016, or at such other time as may be authorized by the Board (the “Liquidation Date”). Termination of the Funds is expected to occur as soon as practicable following liquidation.
The Fund anticipates making a distribution of any income and/or capital gains of the Portfolios in connection with its liquidation. The liquidation distribution may be taxable. The tax year for the Fund will end on the Liquidation Date.
Purchasers of Fund shares who purchase from the date of this notice and before the liquidation date may be subject to liquidation expenses that they would otherwise not bear, and also may incur short-term capital gains on losses on those shares upon liquidation.
Shareholders of the Fund may redeem their shares at any time prior to the Liquidation Date.
If a shareholder has not redeemed his or her shares as of the Liquidation Date, the shareholder’s account will be automatically redeemed and proceeds will be sent to the shareholder at his or her address of record. Liquidation proceeds will be paid in cash for the redeemed shares at their net asset value.
If a you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares, or the receipt of a liquidating distribution. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor.
If the liquidation is approved by shareholders, the Fund’s portfolio managers will likely increase the Fund’s assets held in cash and similar instruments in order to pay for Fund expenses and meet redemption requests. As a result, as of the date of shareholder approval of the liquidation, the Portfolios...
(more information on the link)

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018862/000072888916002536/commoditystrategysticker.htm
497 1 commoditystrategysticker.htm
Oppenheimer Commodity Strategy Total Return Fund
Supplement dated May 2, 2016 to the Supplements dated April 29, 2016 to the
Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
This supplement amends the supplements dated April 29, 2016 to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (the “April Supplements”) of the above referenced fund (the “Fund”), and is in addition to any other supplement(s).
1. The Liquidation Date, as defined in the April Supplements, is changed from on or about June 29, 2016 to on or about July 15, 2016.
2. The third sentence of the second paragraph of the April Supplements, regarding the date the Fund will no longer accept new investments, is deleted entirely and replaced with:
Effective as of the close of the New York Stock Exchange on April 29, 2016, the Fund no longer accepts new purchases, except that existing shareholders can continue to purchase in the following types of retirement plans: defined contribution plans including 401(k) (including “Single K”), 403(b) custodial plans, pension and profit sharing plans, defined benefit plans (including “Single DB Plus”), SIMPLE IRAs and SEP IRAs. The Fund reserves the right, in its discretion, to modify the extent to which sales of shares are limited prior to the Liquidation Date.
May 2, 2016 PS0735.047

FYI: Is that gift horse 401(k) plan you have a good deal? Have you examined its teeth?
Maybe it’s time.
The issue here is simple. This gift horse is one you may have to ride until you retire. When 401(k) plans got their start 30 years ago they were imagined as a supplement to pension plans. Today they are the main deal for retirement saving
Regards,
Ted
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/how-good-is-your-401(k)-plan

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1019946/000089418916009530/purisma_497e.htm
497 1 purisma_497e.htm SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
THE PURISIMA FUNDS
Supplement dated May 6, 2016 to
Prospectus dated December 31, 2015
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of The Purisima Funds has determined that it is advisable to liquidate, dissolve and terminate the legal existence of the Trust, including both of its series, The Purisima Total Return Fund and The Purisima All-Purpose Fund (each, a “Fund” and together, the Funds”). In connection with this determination, the Board has adopted a plan of liquidation. Please note that the Trust will be liquidating its assets on or about June 30, 2016 (the “Distribution Date”).
In connection with the liquidation of the Trust, effective immediately, the Trust will CEASE SALES OF FUND SHARES. In addition, effective immediately, the Trust’s investment manager, Fisher Asset Management, LLC (the “Manager”), will begin an orderly transition of the Trust’s portfolio investments to cash and cash equivalents and each Fund will thereafter no longer be pursuing its investment objective.
At any time prior to the Distribution Date, investors may redeem shares of the Fund. On or about the Distribution Date, the Funds will liquidate their assets and distribute cash pro rata to all remaining shareholders who have not previously redeemed their shares. If you still hold shares of the Trust on the Distribution Date, we will automatically redeem your shares and remit the cash proceeds to you (via check or wire) based on the instructions listed on your account.
The redemption, sale, exchange, or liquidation of your shares may be a taxable event to the extent that your tax basis in the shares is lower than the liquidation proceeds per share that you receive. You should consult your personal tax advisor concerning your particular tax situation.
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax adviser regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares. If you hold your Fund shares through a tax-deferred retirement account, you should consult with your tax adviser or account custodian to determine how you may reinvest your redemption proceeds on a tax-deferred basis. For example, if you hold your shares in an IRA account directly with U.S. Bank N.A., you have 60 days from the date you receive your proceeds to reinvest your proceeds into another IRA account and maintain their tax-deferred status. You must notify the Fund or your financial advisor prior to June 15, 2016 of your intent to reinvest your IRA account to avoid withholding deductions from your proceeds.
Please contact the Trust at 1-800-550-1071 if you have questions or need assistance.
Please retain this Supplement with your Prospectus and SAI for future reference.

Sometimes you can do a distribution in kind from your IRA to your taxable account and bootstrap an institutional share account that way. (Occasionally the fund company will require you to pony up enough to meet the high minimum or it will convert the shares to retail shares.)
If you do a distribution this way, you can even avoid IRA tax consequences by replacing the shares removed with their cash value within 60 days (i.e. a 60 day IRA rollover).
I've posted before that I think the question of whether there's a 12b-1 fee is a red herring.
Retail funds are going to collect money from the fund one way or another to pay for servicing the account. A fund uses this money to pay a third party brokerage to do the selling and generate account statements, or to do these tasks itself if selling direct.
It may or may not break the cost out as a separate line item, but either way, that's a reason why the retail funds cost more. The TRP fund has no 12b-1 fee, but included in "other expenses" are "administrative fees" of up to 0.15%:

The funds may make payments to retirement plan recordkeepers, broker-dealers, and other financial intermediaries (at a rate of up to 0.15% of average daily net assets per year) for transfer agency, recordkeeping, and other administrative services that they provide on behalf of the funds. These administrative services may include services such as maintaining account records for each customer; transmitting net purchase and redemption orders; delivering shareholder confirmations, statements, and tax forms; and providing support to respond to customers’ questions regarding their accounts.

See Prospectus.

Just wanted to chime with regard to Roth 401K plans.
Roth 401k plans grow tax free and can be withdrawn tax free, but must follow RMD (required minimum distributions) rules after age 70.5.
Individual Roth IRA plans do not have RMD requirements.

If only things were that simple :-)
The IRS does not impose RMDs on Roth 401(k)s or regular 401(k)s so long as you are working where the money is held. (That is, if you are working at company B, you might not have an RMD at company B, though your money at your former company A would be subject to RMDs.) Same for 403(b)s, but SIMPLEs and SEPs follow IRA rules - RMDs even while you're working.
https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/RMD-Comparison-Chart-IRAs-vs.-Defined-Contribution-Plans
https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/still-working-and-past-age-70-12-answers-7-frequently-asked-questions
That's the IRS rule. Still, the plan itself may require you to take RMDs after age 70.5, so you have to check the plan rules also.
Depending on the terms of the plan, you can often take an "in-service" distribution from a 401(k) or similar once you turn 59.5. That enables you to transfer the Roth contributions to a Roth IRA to avoid the RMD issue, assuming you're still working. (If you're not, you're free to take the money out at any age and transfer it to an IRA or use however you'd like.)
Finally, a couple of obscure exceptions to all of the above:
1) In a 403(b) (but not a 401(k)) pre-1987 contributions may not have to be taken out until age 75
2) Inherited Roth IRAs do have RMDs. (If a spouse rolls over an inherited IRA into his/her own IRA, then it is no longer inherited and no longer subject to RMDs.)

I believe Target (allocation) funds can be used quite effectively to not only get you to "work retirement", but also as a tool to get you through until your "earthly retirement" aka death. Something I have shared before and I am still refining are these investment thoughts:
bee's Target Date Strategy:
I've often thought there are really two target dates, one targeting retirement from "work" and one targeting retirement from "earth".
Fully funding a retirement dated (glide path allocation) fund makes perfect sense. As a retirement dated fund glides towards its maturity date it attempts to provide a smooth landing for your investment at that date.
Effectively, at "work" retirement, an investor would have most of their assets in low risk investments. This might be helpful if the markets happens to severely correct in the first 5 years of retirement, but this portfolio must also be re-allocated the prepare for longevity risk (your money needs to last as long as you do). So, during the first few years of retirement a portion of this retirement portfolio needs to reallocated into investments that attempt to achieve portfolio longevity in retirement.
In a sense, a retiree could reallocate a percentage of their retirement portfolio into target date funds that target the incremental need to reach "earthly" retirement. Much like laddering CDs, a retiree could ladder target date funds in 5 year increments that will be used for spending if the retiree is lucky enough to reach that target date.
I could envision a retiree owning 6 separate retirement dated funds, each maturing 5 years further into the future (funding years 65-95 or 70-100) and each needing differing amounts of initial funding based on financial needs during that 5 year period in the future. The last fund matures on your date of death and pays your funeral expenses.
Sorry if some of this sounds a bit morbid to the reader.

I think these funds are the best option for a majority of 401k working investors. I would like to see them standardized across brokerages though. Maybe if they called them by their target stock/bond allocation instead of retirement date. The Vanguard's, Fidelity's and T.Rowe Price's of the world can then add "recommended for retirement date such and such". Seems like a much better way to understand what you're invested in.

FYI: What's in your 401(k)? For more of us, the answer is just a single fund.
Target-date retirement funds aim to make investing simple, and that's why their popularity is exploding. Just pick one pegged to the year you plan to retire, put money in steadily, and it will take care of loading up on high-growth, riskier stocks when you're young and moving into more conservative investments as you age.
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7a02eac1ec15481ab7abc85153e8ca65/flying-autopilot-target-date-funds-points-consider

One thing I really like about a couple of Skeet's funds is that they are load funds from load families. Not just ordinary load families, they're run by insurance companies. And they merit consideration.
Principal offers some pretty solid funds through retirement plans, but they're also available at the retail level, NTF, at some brokerages.
Here's the Fidelity NTF listing for PMDAX (it's a Fidelity fund pick).
Don't get thrown off by its 3* rating; that's because M* ratings incorporate the impact of loads, and M* overweights that impact for funds with shorter lifetimes (this fund is rated on its three year record only). Instead, see it as a 4* noload fund:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PMDAX.lw/quote.html
I'm less familiar with SunAmerica - I tend to associate it with VAs, and apparently it's now (since 1998) a subsidiary of AIG. Talk about queasy feelings. Yet the fund seems solid. You can purchase it NTF through TDAmeritrade.
American Century funds, like funds from PIMCO and a variety of other families are sold both load and noload. The noload version of TWEAX is TWEIX. (When one drops the load, whether on TWEAX or TWEIX, the fund gets bumped to a 5 star fund; TWEIX is less expensive as it doesn't have a 12b-1 fee.) One downside is that it's not particularly tax efficient, even allowing for its emphasis on dividends.
LCEIX (now LCEAX) has been on my short list for years, in part because it is more tax-efficient than some of the other funds that pop out in the LCV space.
FWIW, Fidelity added several families (including Invesco) to its load waiver list about three years ago. Here's my post on the Fidelity waivers:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/6048/fidelity-waives-loads

I return to employer Roth because this thread is entitled salary deduction/reduction (retirement plan contributions). Of course that doesn't preclude raising the question (as you did) of whether one wants to do either, or instead (or in addition) contribute to an IRA, Roth or otherwise.

Did not mean employer Roth; sorry for lack of clarity.
Good high-level synopsis, much of which others have covered in part:
http://fairmark.com/retirement/roth-accounts/to-roth-or-not-to-roth/roth-ira-rules-of-thumb/

Matching shouldn't have much to do in deciding whether to contribute to an employer plan (e.g. 403(b)) as a salary reduction (pre-tax) or a salary deduction (Roth option). You get the match either way. (See this IRS FAQ on Roth contributions to employer plans.)
The argument you may have in mind is that one should contribute to an employer plan as opposed to an IRA until the match limit is reached. But that's a different question from whether contributions to the plan should be pre- or post-tax.
I don't believe you get the match on the older (non-Roth) type of after-tax contributions. No proof, just some inferences. That's one case in which matching (might) affect the choice of contributions to the employer plan.
Employer contributions, whether profit sharing, matching, or anything else, are always pre-tax. That's a small argument for making all contributions (from the first dollar) to the 403(b) as Roth contributions (if available). You may want to have a mix of pre- and post-tax dollars. (FWIW, opinions differ on the merits of "tax diversification".)
The most common argument for making deductible contributions is that your tax rate may be higher now when you're working than after you retire. This argument applies equally to 403(b) pre-tax vs. Roth and to IRA pre-tax vs. Roth.
Another argument for making contributions to the employer plan pre-tax as opposed to post tax (Roth option) is that if you're close to the income limit for Roth IRA contributions, pre-tax contributions can keep you under the limit. But you may be able to get around the limit anyway with a backdoor IRA Roth conversion (if you've got no money in a traditional IRA).
Bottom line: matching is likely not a concern when deciding whether to contribute to an employer plan pre-tax or post-tax; the considerations for the employer plan are largely the same as they are for deciding between traditional and Roth IRA contributions.

Yikes - Just when I thought these retirement options couldn't get any more complicated ... :)
Nice summary msf.
There seem to be (from my cursory reading) about an equal number of proponents of the Roth vrs. Traditional IRA. With the traditional you put a lot more money to work right away (since it's pre-tax money). With the Roth you make out like a bandit during the withdrawal years (unless the rules change).
Both good ways to invest. Whatever plan is selected, through diligent online research, one can uncover the fine points. I'd encourage Hawk's daughter to do this, regardless of plan. It took me 6-7 years after I did the first (of 3) Roth conversions to fully understand all the restrictions and "ins & outs." Really complex rules - and even the experts sometimes offer seemingly contradictory answers.
Ah-em ... if I may say ... We 403B people paved the road for the later 401K. Originally the deferred compensation concept was designed for public employees. The private sector plans came after. An interesting (not widely known) quirk in the early 403B rules allowed us to transfer money out to other custodians while we were still employed. Uncle Sam later plugged that loophole - I believe sometime after 2000. Nice while it lasted.