The small cap value universe has been proven academically and empirically to produce alpha premium above the other stock universes over a 90 year period.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kToqLWLISRk4n4YnSzv1hT5kBN54l5CvhwGgDwJKPJI/edit?usp=sharing
etf.com/sections/index-investor-corner/swedroe-small-caps-still-outperforming?nopaging=1.
Investing in the equity markets doesn't have to be complicated and an investor doesn't necessarily need more than a handful of funds representing the equity universe. An investor in the "young" demographic of the investment "lifecycle" ( age 20 - 50 ) can exploit the maximum asset accumulation into retirement phase and beyond, by first building a core position in small cap value, and then over the course of the career, they can diversify into other stock universes ( mid cap growth producing the next best alpha premium and also being somewhat non correlated to value; performance of value and growth trading off performance "leads" over the course of market cycles ( see P. O'Shaughnessy and T. Carlisle).
Further risk mitigated, maximal asset accumulation has been achieved through the use of small cap value ( and also mid cap growth ) and tactical asset allocation modelling
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1pQuBfbPd18ca0G-KiZc5FIWNMx0pNa87INgsLjEwuzY/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1C37CJypoxHWHB09e3g25ewOGjP83wDZhj5j6tlrLJoA/edit?usp=sharing
This is a new frontier of asset management science.
(Fortunately or unfortunately) this type of minimal, systematic alpha producing process can be automated and eliminates the need for human, objectively derived allocation decision processes ( "The Robot's Are Coming " )

Hi, Kevin.
I know. The problem is that small caps (well, stocks) are volatile and I'm rotten at timing the market or making other tactical allocation moves. Mostly I've got too much else going on to spend a lot of time with assessing the Russell 2K's p/e or peg or whatever, and partly I've got a spectacular track record for guessing wrong. As a result, I try to focus my non-retirement portfolio on multi-asset managers; that is, folks who have the freedom to dodge and weave on my behalf. Sometimes that's an overtly multi-asset fund like FPACX or BBALX, sometimes it's a fund with a broad mandate (Seafarer can invest in companies domiciled in the developed world with substantial earnings in the developing one and such stocks represent something like half of the portfolio) and sometimes it's absolute-value guys who say "if it's not a compelling value, I'm sitting on cash."
There are just a couple focused equity funds (Grandeur Peak, Artisan International Value, Wasatch Microcap Value) where I think the managers are doing something useful and distinctive. On whole, my non-retirement portfolio is about 50% growth (half US, half international) and 50% income (Price Spectrum Income, Matthews Asia Strategic Income, RiverPark Short Term High Yield and so on).
To be clear: I'm not preaching that that's The One Right Way. It's just what allows me to make a little money, sleep well and focus elsewhere.
Over the course of the full market cycle, the small cap fund -inclusive of growth, core, and value - with the highest Sharpe ratio, a measure of whether you're getting compensated for the risks you're taking - is Intrepid. It's #1 of 410. VSTCX is about 120th, just behind NAESX and VISVX. Its correlation with those two funds is .99 and .98, respectively. In addition to a higher Sharpe ratio, Intrepid has higher absolute returns over the market cycle (through 1/30/16) than does VTSCX and a substantially lower correlation to the small cap indexes.
Pinnacle isn't far behind Intrepid at 15th by Sharpe with a much lower correlation to any of the above, though also with lower absolute returns than Intrepid or Vanguard. The Aston fund hasn't been around long enough to have full market cycle data, though its five-year profile is strikingly similar to ICMAX.
Up-cycles present a different picture and these guys get left in the dust. But since I don't get to invest just during up-cycles, I don't tend to focus there.
In short, what I find attractive is the combination of higher returns and lower volatility over meaningful market periods.
David

Hi @DavidV,
Thank you for your question.
I do care about portfolio allocation in each account that makes up the master portfolio that I have detailed above. Naturally, the asset allocation does varry from account-to-account along with the holdings. For example, in my health savings account about one third is currently invested in only one fund (American Balanced Fund) and the other two thirds is currently held in cash which is much more than I need from an annual health care perspective. It is one of the accounts that I throttle form time-to-time by adjusting it's allocation as how I am reading the markets. Currently, with high equity valuations and anticipated interest rate increases I have rolled back my exposure to both stocks & bonds not only in this account but in all of my accounts. All the accounts get throttled from time-to-time but not all get throttled at the same time as I make changes (rebalance) over time. For example, I have been raising my cash allocation and lowering my allocation to both stocks and bonds for the past couple of years due to higher than normal price to earnings ratios for stocks and anticipated rising interest rates which will effect most bond valuations.
Generally, when I make a buy, I buy with the intent to hold the asset for at least a year. When selling something, in my taxable account, I generally take profits form long term positions while letting the shorter term positions ride until their profits (or losses) will be taxed as long term capital gains (or losses). For me, investing centers more around time in the markets over timing the markets. Trading centers around timing the markets. Generally, I hold more equities (towards the high range of my allowable allocation) when they have become oversold and their valuations are reasonable ... and, I'll hold less when their valuations have increase with higher than normal price to earnings ratios thus becoming overbought.
Most of these accounts have been in place for a good number of years as I am now retired and began investing when I was a teenager in FKINX (which was my first mutual fund purchased and still remains my largest single position at about six percent of my portfolio). Interestingly, form my late fifties, up to my full retirement at age 67, I made more from my investing endeavors than I made from working.
Thanks again for the question. I hope the above provides you with some insight as how I govern my portfolio and answers your question.

@shostakovich. A fair point, sir. It indeed seems that actively-managed funds can successfully offer lower volatility in return for lower returns, and for retirees, that is probably a good option.
But since over a ten year period -- one that included the biggest housing bubble and market crash since the Great Depression -- a simple balanced index fund outperformed GMO's flagship fund on an aftertax basis by an average of 226 basis points a year, and on a pretax basis by 117 basis points a year (and that's assuming you were lucky enough to have $10 million to buy the cheaper, institutional share class), I think that for most people with at least 10 years till retirement, the index fund is the better bet.
But that investor will have to close his eyes and even add more if possible during the inevitable downturns. Not every investor can do that.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1217286/000119312516478119/d149787d497.htm
497 1 d149787d497.htm JPMORGAN TRUST I
J.P. MORGAN INTERNATIONAL EQUITY FUNDS
JPMorgan Asia Pacific Fund
(All Share Classes)
(a series of JPMorgan Trust I)
Supplement dated February 25, 2016
To the Prospectuses, Summary Prospectuses and Statement
of Additional Information dated March 1, 2015, as supplemented
NOTICE OF LIQUIDATION OF THE JPMORGAN ASIA PACIFIC FUND. The Board of Trustees of the JPMorgan Asia Pacific Fund (the “Fund”) has approved the liquidation and dissolution of the Fund on or about April 6, 2016 (the “Liquidation Date”). Effective immediately, the Fund may depart from its stated investment objective and strategies as it increases its cash holdings in preparation for its liquidation. Unless you have an individual retirement account (“IRA”) where the State Street Bank and Trust (“SSBT”) serves as the custodian, on the Liquidation Date, the Fund shall distribute pro rata to its shareholders of record all of the assets of the Fund in complete cancellation and redemption of all of the outstanding shares of beneficial interest, except for cash, bank deposits or cash equivalents in an estimated amount necessary to (i) discharge any unpaid liabilities and obligations of the Fund on the Fund’s books on the Liquidation Date, including, but not limited to, income dividends and capital gains distributions, if any, payable through the Liquidation Date, and (ii) pay such contingent liabilities as the officers of the Fund deem appropriate subject to ratification by the Board. Capital gain distributions, if any, may be paid on or prior to the Liquidation Date. If you have a Fund direct IRA account where SSBT serves as custodian, your shares will be exchanged for the corresponding class of shares of the JPMorgan Liquid Assets Money Market Fund as specified below, unless you provide alternative direction prior to the Liquidation Date. For all other IRA accounts, the proceeds will be invested based upon guidelines of the applicable Plan administrator.
Share Class of JPMorgan Asia Pacific Fund Share Class of JPMorgan Liquid AssetsMoney Market Fund
Class A Shares Morgan Shares
Class C Shares Morgan Shares
Select Class Morgan Shares
Upon liquidation, shareholders may purchase any class of another J.P. Morgan Fund for which they are eligible with the proceeds of the liquidating distribution. Shareholders holding Class A Shares or Select Class Shares will be permitted to use their proceeds from the liquidation to purchase Class A Shares of another J.P. Morgan Fund at net asset value within 90 days of the liquidating distribution. They may also purchase other share classes for which they are eligible. If Shareholders of Class C Shares purchase Class C Shares of another J.P. Morgan Fund within 90 days of the liquidating distribution, no contingent deferred sales charge will be imposed on those new Class C Shares.
FOR EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS OF RECORD OF THE FUND AS OF FEBRUARY 29, 2016, ADDITIONAL PURCHASES OF FUND SHARES WILL BE ACCEPTED UP TO AND INCLUDING MARCH 15, 2016 AFTER WHICH NO NEW PURCHASES WILL BE ACCEPTED. FOR ALL OTHER INVESTORS, PURCHASES OF FUND SHARES WILL NO LONGER BE ACCEPTED EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 2016.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT
WITH THE PROSPECTUS, SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

Andrew Foster dropped a note in my mailbox this afternoon to inform me that the 4th Qtr Portfolio review for SFGIX has been posted. As most know, Mr. Foster worked in Asia for some time before his days at Mathews and reacts (and doesn't react) to Asian events in uncharacteristic ways. Always worth a glance, IMO, even if one isn't prepared to have him work with your money just yet.
http://www.seafarerfunds.com/fund/portfolio-review
His current stance on Asia--- and on emerging market stocks in general--- has taken a turn, and I think it's worth a smoke in the pipe:

February 2016 – In his latest portfolio review, Andrew Foster discusses a shift in the Fund’s composition, away from the Asian region, and toward larger stocks at the expense of smaller ones. Next, he speculates as to the cause behind the collapse in China’s capital markets. While he does not offer a definitive explanation, he does suggest that circumstances may be serious enough to warrant attention from investors.

heezafe,
Thanks for the information.
It sounds like you know a bit about the Matthews Funds as well a Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income.
If my research is correct and current, MAPIX is about 30% Japan and 35% China/Hong Kong, MACSX is about 36% China/Hong Kong and 6% Japan, and the last I looked SFGIX was about 17% China/Hong Kong and 3% Japan, with a total of 52% in Asia, so it is more diverse in the Asia space than MACSX or MAPIX. Also, SFGIX had a 13% position in Emerging Europe, 21% in Latin America, and 5% in South Africa.
Currently I own MACSX (seems to be the least risky of the three) in a retirement account and I am trying to figure out if owning SFGIX and or MAPIX gives me added diversification, or I just would be collecting funds.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Mona

Totally agree, MJG and Dex. The one thing I would add to any list of retirement planning scenarios, to-dos, best practices is to start retirement as debt-free as possible. As I have experienced on every occasion, no debt (especially no mortgage) in retirement is simply huge. For most middle-income folks, it is THE factor that allows them to have a positive lifetime cash flow experience.

Hi Dex, Hi BobC
Thanks for your commentary. Perhaps from this dialectic exchange a useful synergy will emerge. That often happens.
Best Wishes.

We probably don't differ as much as you might think. The difference is probably where you put the emphasis. The items I mentioned are the meat of the issue.
The monte carlo is a tool for evaluation and planning - but not high on my list.
If I were to expand upon my list:
- know how to budget
- track your spending
- pay yourself first
- spend less then you earn
I would add - understand cash flow in retirement investment planning:
- investment income
- pension
- SS
- 401K distribution requirements and taxes
- 'near cash' investments to cover stock/bond downturn periods
After that you can use the monte carlo to model you options.

Hi Dex, Hi BobC
Thanks for your commentary. Perhaps from this dialectic exchange a useful synergy will emerge. That often happens.
I take no issue with the general rules that you both advocate. I too use them. But they are motherhood and apple pie. If your mother and father did not lecture them as a practical gospel before teenage, your parents were delinquent. That advice is accepted wisdom; it just does not go far enough for retirement planning purposes.
Those guidelines simply do not yield a yardstick to measure retirement planning progress against, and do not help in a final retirement decision. Some metrics are needed. A Monte Carlo approach is a perfect tool given the uncertain nature of future portfolio performance. Monte Carlo methods were specifically developed during World War II to address uncertainty, especially when a boatload of data are accessible.
Napoleon said: “Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide”. Information gathering, data interpretation, hypotheses testing, and flexibility to adjust are essential elements in any ongoing retirement planning process.
Without numbers and expectation estimates, a potential retiree is lost at sea. Without credible estimates any retirement consultant is similarly lost at sea, and is not providing a full service. Convenient, easy to use, and fast Monte Carlo simulations fill many of the gaps, at least in a probabilistic sense. That’s as good as it gets.
For example, use the PortfolioVisualizer Monte Carlo tool. In a few minutes it runs 1000 random cases for the input parameters. Those input parameters are easily changed to explore what-if scenarios. Those what-if scenarios test the robustness of any assumptions. Time span is changed with a single input.
Output includes a likely median end wealth portfolio value, a portfolio survivable probability, and the 25 and 75 percentile portfolio value likelihoods. All this is good stuff and informs both the sagacity of the ongoing savings process and any final retirement date decision. These outputs can be updated over time, and yield retirement guidance. And it’s all free for the doing.
Note that the Monte Carlo simulators that I recommend do not operate in a vacuum. They are just one tool in a retirement planning toolkit. Adopting that tool does NOT preemptively require discarding all the other elements discussed in these exchanges. These are not mutually exclusive planning devices. They should be used in tandem.
Monte Carlo simulators have become a more or less standard tool in financial planning circles. An early version was developed by Nobel Laureate Bill Sharpe. He still runs that service as part of his Financial Engines website. Like all tools, the everyday American wisdom is to “use it or lose it”. I’m at a loss to construct an alternate way to generate any meaningful projections for the survivability of any retirement war-kiddy.
Your suggestions are welcomed and encouraged.
Best Wishes.

No word yet on why, but the merger will be a tax-free event and will occur around May 23rd. The US Value team runs both funds. Both have great long-term records and sucky recent ones. Measured by sector allocations, their portfolios are dissimilar. Small Cap has been hurt by an major overweight in energy, which was recently trimmed. Scott Satterwhite, the founding manager, has been phasing out for more than a year with retirement coming in fall.
None of which is an answer, but they're the pieces I've got so far.
For what interest that holds,
David

@DavidV & MFO Members Here are some suggestions.
Regards,
Ted
Suggested Bond Time Period Allocations:
25 Years + To Retirement:
11-25 " " "
1-10 " " ":
Retirement:
:
http://www.seninvest.com/article13.htm

Monte Carlo is ok to get a broad overview of the probability of maintaining the lifestyle you want until you die. For many people, however, the use of Monte Carlo is not so great. The majority of folks (not on this board) have never saved for retirement, or if so, have done a bare minimum. They spend a lot more than they make. And they approach retirement with more baggage than will fit in their assigned overhead bin. I still maintain that starting retirement with no mortgage and no credit card debt is huge, something a lot of people should work to achieve. There are a lot of basic principles that people should use, but two of the most important are 1) spend less than you earn and 2) pay yourself first - meaning have a goal of maxing out your retirement plan contributions.

Hi Dex,
You provide a fine list of glittering generalities.
What? - Very specific to anyone who reads it.
I do not understand your position that more information will somehow damage the preparation for retirement and a final retirement decision. Monte Carlo simulations add scale to a retirement roadmap.
Best Wishes.

Without what I wrote no need for a Monte Carlo - you probably won't have $.
Yes, what I wrote is obvious and simple - most great ideas are.

No magic recipe. Just keep the more exotic and high yield stuff small, particularly later during work and into retirement. I took a look at their recent "Bond Squad" entries in the Morningstar Discussions. There's a whole big menu, over there. At 61, I'm 43 stocks, 39 bonds. The rest is cash or "other," held in the funds. Some might say I'm too heavy in stocks. But I do believe I'm in the ballpark of what's not overly-risky. Don't over-think it. If you are high-income, use a lot of munis, but not exclusively. ...Actually, I've chosen three separate bond funds, and after that, I let the Fund Managers do the arranging. PREMX, PRSNX, DLFNX. But I have two "Balanced" funds holding both stocks and bonds, too. MAPOX and PRWCX. But PRWCX is closed right now, unless you're already into it. Look also at DODIX. MWTRX. But these are solely open-ended. Others can clue you in to closed-end funds. I even forget whether there is such a thing as a bond ETF..... There are indeed professionals here, and they can give you something "from the horse's mouth."

@Dex @MikeM @MJG
As noted by Dex.....these first four
- know how to budget
- track your spending
- pay yourself first
- spend less then you earn
>>>If the person can not be involved with or control any of these, there will be no need for anything related to the Monte Carol machine.
Probably more so today than with my generation, there is a high likelihood that a college graduate today, or anyone employed has not a clue as to where they will find their arse on retirement day.
But, one thing is written; in that if the 4 items in the list above can not be properly controlled, the retirement roadmap will not exist to any value.
I know from 2015 the same type of budget information I know from 1970; as to how much and where monies travel in the broad budget categories. Tis not difficult to track.
Catch

Hi Dex,
MikeM is exactly on-target.
You provide a fine list of glittering generalities. These are such motherhood concepts and values that they are typically acknowledged without careful scrutiny. They appeal to the emotions, but are they actionable in terms of retirement planning or a retirement decision?
My answer is a definite No. They are kindness and goodness, but are far too vague for decision making. It’s the kind of stuff we get from politicians. It sounds good and is even generically correct, but is it enough? No. We need hard numbers for the retirement process.
Your list provides soft (and admirable) guidelines. But they don’t come close to suggesting an answer to the quantity of needed savings. Suppose a worker saved one thousand dollars a year and invested with modest success for 40 years. Is that enough?
Likely not. Early Monte Carlo runs would inform that worker that he needs a more aggressive savings plan. A later Monte Carlo simulation might suggest that a longer work period is needed for a healthy retirement portfolio survival likelihood. That’s not pleasant news, but it helps for better decision making.
Why the reluctance to use accessible tools that will enhance the probability of a successful retirement? These “calculators” do not “make retirement complicated”. They put meat on the bones. They add numerical substance to pure guesswork and gross approximations.
I do not understand your position that more information will somehow damage the preparation for retirement and a final retirement decision. Monte Carlo simulations add scale to a retirement roadmap.
Best Wishes.

Simple heuristics (rules-of-thumb) are fine when making common everyday decisions like buying a hamburger or not, but are totally inadequate when making complex, significant decisions like those about retirement.

If there is one thing that rules of thumb work best - it is retirement planning especially when you are young:
- know how to budget
- track your spending
- pay yourself first
- spend less then you earn
- invest 100 (or 110) - age to stocks, rest to bonds
- understand cash flow thrown off by your investments and your retirement needs
Those simple rules of thumb and maybe a few others are the foundation for financial retirement planning.
While those calculators are interesting ( I've experimented) with them, they are useless without the basics.
Financial planners and stock salesmen like those calculators because they make retirement planning complicated and retirement a nearly impossible goal.

Hi Guys,
Simple heuristics (rules-of-thumb) are fine when making common everyday decisions like buying a hamburger or not, but are totally inadequate when making complex, significant decisions like those about retirement.
The retirement when, where, how much do I need, drawdown rate, portfolio size and placements seem hopelessly intertwined to permit a comfortable and confident decision. But a financial tool is readily accessible that significantly attenuates doubt, and it’s not rule-of-thumb based.
I’ve proposed this approach many times on MFO, but I don’t hesitate to do so once again. That tool is Monte Carlo simulation analyses. I do not apologize for being a broken record in this instance.
Many such tools are easily accessible for free on the Internet. Two such codes that I have previously recommended are the PortfolioVisualizer and the MoneyChimp codes. Here are direct Links to these Monte Carlo simulators:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation
http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/volatility/montecarlo.htm
Please give them a few tries. The inputs are self-explanatory, and the codes are fast. Many scenarios can be explored over a short commitment of time. Endless what-if scenarios can be examined with end portfolio average value and portfolio survival likelihoods as their primary outputs. Thousands of cases are randomly constructed for the projected market returns.
The PortfolioVisualizer tool has more user options, but the MoneyChimp version also does yeomen work. Since these are Monte Carlo-based codes, each time a simulation is made, expect slightly changed predictions. That somewhat captures the fragile nature of the uncertain future.
Retirement decisions will be dramatically improved by application of these simulators. Imperfect analyses (even estimating the range of possible market returns is risky business) almost always beats poorly informed guesstimates. Before making a retirement decision, give the Monte Carlo codes a test ride. They are powerful stuff for everyone.
And for normal circumstances and drawdown rates, a 2 million dollar portfolio is not necessary for a portfolio with some equity holdings. Do the analyses to challenge the robustness of that statement.
Best Wishes.

Using a 4-5% withdrawal rate, the 100-age allocation could be very problematic, as it always has been. Unless there is simply more savings/investments than will ever be used, folks could find they are eating up principal much faster than their longevity will allow. Of course, not having a mortgage when retiring is a game changer, as is receiving a public pension. No mortgage AND a pension are huge. There is no 'rule of thumb' that should be applied here. It is very individualistic, and each household should spend a good amount of time planning just what 'retirement' looks like, both in terms of cash flow and life activity.

Anything to back that up or is it from your life experience?

Using a 4-5% withdrawal rate, the 100-age allocation could be very problematic, as it always has been. Unless there is simply more savings/investments than will ever be used, folks could find they are eating up principal much faster than their longevity will allow. Of course, not having a mortgage when retiring is a game changer, as is receiving a public pension. No mortgage AND a pension are huge. There is no 'rule of thumb' that should be applied here. It is very individualistic, and each household should spend a good amount of time planning just what 'retirement' looks like, both in terms of cash flow and life activity.