This is the message I received with the test trade of JOMIX in my Fidelity retirement account:
"Error: (000967) The mutual fund you entered is not authorized to be traded in your state. Please review your order or call a Fidelity representative a 1-800-544-6666."
JOMMX is the target (prospectus net ER 1.54%) as it is slightly less expensive than JOMIX (net ER of 1.64%).
Kevin

Mike, great find !
Mr. Brewer managed the fund from 12/31/1997-4/29/2008, and during this period, DREGX crushed the EM equity category, and outperformed the top funds in the space as shown HERE.
I just test traded JOMMX and JOMIX in my retirement accounts, and these classes are not available for my purchase at Fidelity, TDAmeritrade, Scottrade and Firstrade. And at Wellstrade, I get the all to familiar "The security entered cannot currently be traded online." Please let me know where you can buy these share classes.
Kevin

I've very much enjoyed this thread and the previous thread on social security. Being 61 years old myself and contemplating retirement, I think about all these comments daily.

You post is an example of why I do not think early retirement or even a comfortable retirement is possible for many - the younger the less likely.
Not enough savings, no pension, SS pushed out, investing properly (whatever saving they have).
Then add into the equation that eventually we will have something like a VAT, increasing expenses over the years.

" I did much of my spreadsheet work using 8% as a return on retirement investments. Why not. It was the average return of a balanced portfolio. Another pipe dream. Any calculation you make going forward, use a realistic returns number. I would suggest 6% would be on the aggressive side. More realistic, use 5-5.5% in your calculations. Hey, BobC who I highly respect has said the same in many of his posts.
Monte Carlo software programs are absolutely a great tool to show you where you stand... throw real (conservative) numbers into these programs. If the truth hurts - pay attention - it's your future. It's math, not voodoo. The results are a guide. Not the absolute."
(Emphasis and editing is mine)
@Mike- hello there, and thanks for your comments. You are absolutely right on. Murphy is alive and well, and will outlive all of us. I used 5%, with excellent results.
Regards- OJ

@MJG: I have no idea what exactly you are asking for. The portion of the spreadsheet that dealt with the retirement projections drew data from the main part of the ss that I still use to keep track of financial and fund performance. It started with the amount then available in the cash/bond/equity baskets, and merely projected forward on a compounding basis, year by year, for forty years. It was also possible to change the cash/bond/equity ratios so as to observe how projected performance would vary. I no longer maintain that retirement section, as it required a lot of time and computing horsepower and is now unnecessary. Having survived 2008 in decent shape, I no longer worry about the big picture. As it turns out, my projections were so conservative that to this point income has exceeded spending, and we have yet to draw down anything from the investment pool.
One of the key variables was the amount of income desired annually, or every-other year on an alternating basis. That entry was also automatically increased going forward on a compounded basis, dependent upon the input inflation rate. The ss then calculated income from retirement and SS (reduced by income tax) going forward, and if the desired income exceeded the actual income projected, would then draw down cash, bond, and equity positions to supply the extra amount needed, and then ran the adjusted values forward. Of course, simply reducing the desired income level also had a major impact. By varying the inputs for the principal cash/bond/equity drawdown ratios, it was possible to see which combination gave the most satisfactory results.
The ss retirement section was a major ongoing investment in time, and underwent frequent revisions and modifications as new complexities presented themselves. Now, I've given you all the time on this that I intend to, and certainly more than you deserve given your many nasty comments over the years.
For those unable or unwilling to go to that much trouble, I'm sure that Monte Carlo exercises are much better than nothing.

I've very much enjoyed this thread and the previous thread on social security. Being 61 years old myself and contemplating retirement, I think about all these comments daily.
I once thought early retirement sounded so wonderful and that it seemed by simple compounding on a spreadsheet that it was "easily" doable. 55 was my goal. All the numbers seemed to work. Hell, my portfolio in the 90's, having no idea what I was doing investment wise, was making 10-15% a year. My wife and I would have a million dollars by age 56. Then came the great recession. A wake up call.
I'll offer my thoughts to what I think I've learned while contemplating retirement. This is just my experience - my 2cents FWIW:
- Pay special attention to life expectancy charts. Yes, you likely will live longer then you ever imagined. What do you think those biotech stocks many here invest in are working on - making you live forever, so to speak. LTC and HC will cost even more then today.
- Early retirement in foresight was a pipe dream of the baby boomers. It was based on "things are different now - we are a special generation" - "this isn't your fathers Oldsmobile". Guess what? If it wasn't good for your father or grandfather, it probably isn't good for you. The government made 65 retirement age for a reason - statistically.
- I did much of my spreadsheet work using 8% as a return on retirement investments. Why not. It was the average return of a balanced portfolio. Another pipe dream. Any calculation you make going forward, use a realistic returns number. I would suggest 6% would be on the aggressive side. More realistic, use 5-5.5% in your calculations. Hey, BobC who I highly respect has said the same in many of his posts.
- Monte Carlo software programs are absolutely a great tool to show you where you stand. Are they the beat all-end all? No, of course not. There are way too many variables in life. But I believe in probability. Yes, history repeats itself, especially in arithmetic. Throw real (conservative) numbers into these programs. If the truth hurts - pay attention - it's your future. It's math, not voodoo. The results are a guide. Not the absolute.
- And lastly, I believe fixed annuities have a place for many retirees, very much so. If only in having the piece of mind that you will be able to pay your bills in any economy, it could be worth a look. Blasphemy on this board? Maybe, but I believe a pension, either purchased or through work is very important.
Good luck to all in this journey.

"The markets do look vulnerable here. a big downturn in retirement would be crippling. The recovery rate of the investments in the portfolio could easily double that four years into eight years. Of course, we all adapt our portfolios and our spending habits if such a downturn comes."
@JohnChisum: Yes, that was another adjustable variable of the "horse-drawn hand-executed spreadsheet": both the severity and the length of the downturn. Again, bias towards the Murphy factor was emphasized, even if by hand. I have to tell you, though, that 2008 resembled the worst-case of my projected downturn.

@Dex, Agree on that. Each person develops their own answer. There is not one set figure or style for everyone.
The markets do look vulnerable here. a big downturn in retirement would be crippling. The recovery rate of the investments in the portfolio could easily double that four years into eight years. Of course, we all adapt our portfolios and our spending habits if such a downturn comes. Top Ramen is still inexpensive.

Hi Old Joe,
Your contribution is a first-rate submittal that nicely details your applied procedure when making your retirement decision. Thank you for your excellent effort.
That procedure includes many elements that are embedded in a Monte Carlo analysis.
The question that was asked many years ago, and even today remains unanswered is: How were the yearly annual return estimates entered into the various equity/fixed income/cash inputs as a function of Spreadsheet time?
You were making many future uncertain estimates. For example, how were return’s variability handled for each year in your hand-executed Spreadsheet? History matters in determining a portfolio’s survival likelihood.
Monte Carlo does this arduous, challenging task with a random number input routine controlled by various statistical formats.
Old Joe, you continue to assert that I claim some superior intellect. In your recent post you said when referring to yourself: “yes, MJG, an assumption!, indicating of course a lesser intellect than you obviously possess”. Sarcasm that doesn’t work.
That’s just plain wrong! I have never claimed and will never claim a superior intellect. Your false charges are Trojan Horses designed to denigrate and to distract. Please address the substance of my posts instead of personal attacks. Your campaign is failing. Seasoned MFOers recognize who is initiating this wasteful activity.
Best Wishes.

I surely do not want to rain on your parade, but I did a few exploratory Monte Carlo simulations for a 30-year retirement period to test the robustness of your analysis that included Social Security benefits. Warning red flags went flying.

What investment and amounts did you enter in the simulator?

http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2011/08/11/extreme-early-retirement-in-practice-how-two-people-did-it/
In 1991 we had close to $500,000 when we took this leap
http://retireearlylifestyle.com/

Hi Dex,
It appears that you have made a decision that is comfortable for your circumstances. Good!
I wish you well and hope that your plan is successful. You were very wise to include safety factors in your wealth component breakout with the inclusion of “near cash” and “contingency” funding.
I surely do not want to rain on your parade, but I did a few exploratory Monte Carlo simulations for a 30-year retirement period to test the robustness of your analysis that included Social Security benefits. Warning red flags went flying.
I did the analyses using your postulated 7% annual return. I examined return standard deviations that ranged between 10% to 18%. Results were disastrous for the 185K investment portfolio by itself. Projected survival rates were at lower mud levels. There is an extremely high probability that you will need to heavily dip into your near cash and contingency components.
Even assuming a $350,000 dollar portfolio earning a 7% annual average return rate, the survival odds never reach an 80% level. That’s a risky route by my compass.
Given the meager market returns in recent years, an assumed 7% annual return rate seems a bit bushytailed. I briefly examined a 6% annual average return; not surprisingly, the estimated survival likelihoods went even further South.
Obviously, you will follow your analytical results and your gut feelings. I proffer only a caution, Take a little time to more fully evaluate your circumstances. You might want to reassess your analysis including portfolio return’s variability as a major element in that rework.
Whatever action you finally implement, I do wish you a relaxed, happy, and trouble-free retirement that permits you to complete any bucket list that inspires you.
Best Wishes.

The big unanswerable Q for middle class prospective retirement is: will you or your spouse require LTC -- particularly "Memory Care" -- current name for dementia care. If so, it can be devastating to finances, and will become more so if current trends continue. In the past 7-8 years I have seen this situation play out for 3 family members, all different situations in terms of savings ("wealth"), pensions, and family support. I just recently spent the better part of a year accompanying a relative through an endless succession of visits to living facilities with provisions for "memory care", as well as conferences with a nationally known eldercare lawyer. I learned a great deal about costs, about how facilities determine charges and whether the applicant has "ability to pay", about LTC insurance policies and rates (which BTW will certainly go up substantially in the very near future -- plus a substantial differential for females -ahem). We also observed the interesting fact that deluxe retirement facilities are not only being bought up by corporate entities, but many new ones are under construction by these corporations everywhere as well. Since the supply of those with unlimited resources is finite and the for-profits don't take Medicaid when you run out, I assume that the intended clientile is uppermiddle-to-lower-upper, and if and when you are picked clean, you end up moving to wherever they take Medicaid.
This is an extremely complicated subject, and I am no professional observer, merely one who has been a bystander to the struggles of others, and I can only point out here one of the issues which sooner or later many of us will have to face. None of us knows the future, but this possibility is not one that many of us think about when we plan, and the possibilities for financial catastrophy, particularly for a surviving spouse, do exist.
In summary, my point is that there are possibilities that may arise in our retirement that we do not wish to contemplate; that we should consider, and that
we simply cannot guarantee, but should be aware of.
To those who pursue this post to the closing paragraph -- I wish you well, hope that you do not ever have to contemplate such an issue in your own lives, but that you maintain awareness, not only for yourselves, but for others (aka, our society as a whole), and wish you well....

Hi Dex,
You ask a very open-ended question that is poorly timed if it specifically applies to your situation. From your earlier postings, I recall that you jumped into the retirement stream a few years ago. If so, you are probably an unhappy camper these days that prompted the question. Fortunately, reassessments, recoveries, and reversals are often possible.
Good luck on your reassessment project.
Best Wishes.

Too many assumptions to go into there. Monte Carlo and others are like many rule of thumb (e.g. 4% rule) estimators - good for generalities but not good for the specific situations.
Generally, a bottoms up approach is better i.e. budget, net worth, pension, SS etc.
This is my 2015 budget own home, no debt, single person
Basic Living
House
2,117 RE Tax
2,556 HOA
489 Electric
928 Insurance
300 Misc Purchases
133 Mail Box
6,522 Subtotal House
Car
138 AAA
744 Routine Mtc.
1,164 Insurance
82 Registration
1,800 Gas
3,929 Subtotal Car
Personal Expenses
327 Income Taxes
1,200 Cash
360 Medical
340 Cell Phone
3,300 Food
600 Wine
59 Misc
396 Internet Access
300 Dining Out/Entertainment
4,029 Health Ins.
300 Clothes
- Driving Lic
11,211 Subtotal Personal Expenses
21,661 Total Basic Living
Incremental Living - 1
91 Travel Trailer Reg
492 Storage
Good Sam
583
Incremental Living - 2
6,256 Travel/Education/Etc
Misc Hobbies
6,256
6,839 Total Discretionary
28,500 Total Basic + Incremental
Let's assume I don't have any pension or SS, and no inflation for now. What do I need?
$114,000 in near cash for 4 years of expenses - this is ride out market (bond & stock downturns.
$407,143 earning 7% to get to 28,500/year expenses
$100,000 to 150,000 contingency money, if wanted, earning ???
$621,143 to 671,143 total excluding house
Does a person need all that money? Maybe not if the person will collect SS. The closer they are to collecting SS would affect that - e.g. if they are within 2 years they could have less money in near cash.
This is not meant to be a perfect example.
Now let's use Junkster's info on SS $1294 monthly - 15,528/yr
$28,500 Total Basic + Incremental
-$15,528 SS
$12,972 to be funded
$51,888 in near cash for 4 years of expenses - this is ride out market (bond & stock downturns.
$185,143 earning 7% to get to 12,972/year expenses to be funded
$100,000 to 150,000 contingency money, if wanted, earning ???
$337,031 to 357,031 total excluding house
Both of these examples are better than monte carlo and top down rule of thumb.
There are two reasons I can think of that the top down method is the most discussed:
1. Advisors use them to scare people into buying their services
2. Budgeting is boring and most don't people don't have one nor do most know where they spend their money.

Hi Junkster,
Thank you for reading my post. It’s nice to know that I engage, and perhaps sometimes enrage, your interests. Disagreements and disparate opinions among investors is commonplace.
We agree that a Two Million Dollar Man need not access a Monte Carlo tool if he spends at the rates you specified.
But your Two Million Dollar Man is likely an artificial, unrealistic strawman who mostly exists in your fertile imagination. There are not many such individuals in the US.
According to a 2012 CNN Money report, using data from an IRS 2007 survey, about 1.8 million Americans had wealth in excess of the 2 million dollar threshold. I know you stated that you don’t read my references, but, nevertheless, here is the Link:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/02/news/economy/wealth_in_America/
The number of citizens that fit your strawman description is miniscule. It is certainly not mandatory that such a unique character consult any Monte Carlo simulators.
But it still might be a worthwhile project for him. Given his wealthy status, he might want to explore how much he could expand his subsistence lifestyle without compromising his portfolio survival likelihoods. A few Monte Carlo runs would yield some useful guidelines.
Your postulated Two Million Dollar Man is surely atypical for the bulk of MFO visitors. The median accumulated wealth for US citizens is well under one million dollars. Given that reality, a retirement decision is not easy for most Americans.
Uncertainties cause fear, and fear causes decision paralysis. Monte Carlo analyses can relieve, not totally cure, the uncertainty and the subsequent paralysis. It’s only a tool, but it’s a nice addition to an investor’s toolbox.
Best Wishes.
EDIT in Reply to Junkster's edit: Your internet troll charges directed at me are speculative and groundless. On both FundAlarm and on MFO, I have been a persistent advocate for a deeper understanding of statistics, for Monte Carlo analyses, and for relevant references. That may not make you happy, but that is my honest purpose.
If by your standards that qualifies me as a troll, so be it. I stand by my positions on these matters, and I am satisfied that MFO participants will fairly judge the merits and shortcomings of them.

Hi Dex,
You ask a very open-ended question that is poorly timed if it specifically applies to your situation. From your earlier postings, I recall that you jumped into the retirement stream a few years ago. If so, you are probably an unhappy camper these days that prompted the question. Fortunately, reassessments, recoveries, and reversals are often possible.
A million dollars is a nice nest-egg. But, like in most instances, it depends. It depends very much on the particulars of the situation such as age, wealth, health, partner relationships, preferences, location, and a host of other tangibles and intangibles.
A single answer isn’t appropriate in this forum even for a specific person since the relevant circumstances are dynamic and in constant flux. It is especially not appropriate from the MFO membership given our incomplete and imperfect understanding of your circumstances.
But we can offer generic guidelines and some useful references that will permit candidate retirees to make more informed decisions.
A limitless array of planning tools and aids are easily accessible for anyone willing to do the work. I retired over two decades ago, and even in those prehistoric days, the literature was overwhelming. I selectively used it. Today, given the Internet capabilities, it is a still easier task, but requires some careful screening. All advice is not equal.
I purchased a retirement planning tool generated by an outfit called Educational Technologies, Inc. It included tapes and written documentation. Major sections in it incorporated psychological adjustment, financial planning, investment, heath issues, estate planning, and financial benefit units. I supplemented the financial planning section with independent Monte Carlo simulations.
The retirement decision is multi-dimensional. It is complex with many interacting, dynamic parts. Given that complexity, I doubt that well-meaning MFOers can provide definitive answers beyond some incomplete hints and references. As Reagan said: “Trust, but verify”.
A million dollars might service you very comfortably, but might be totally inadequate for me. In the end, it depends. In the end, the candidate retiree must do the heavy lifting himself. Do the necessary homework. There are no magic wands to simplify the task that MFOers can honestly offer.
I remain consistent in my response to similar questions that you asked on earlier submittals. Explore the usefulness of Monte Carlo simulations. Ignore uniformed judgments by individuals who never used the tool, or even read the literature on the subject.
Experience is a great teacher, but is a time consuming and costly educator. Monte Carlo simulators provide a shortcut learning tool that permits its users to examine a plethora of what-if scenarios tailored to your specific situation. I’ve identified many Internet accessible Monte Carlo codes on earlier interchanges. You can only fully trust your own work.
Good luck on your reassessment project.
Best Wishes.

The table shows $42,557 for a single person. If you are debt free that housing figure would be drastically lower. But also, you have to buy a new vehicle (or newer used one if you are really frugal) every 8 years or so and not sure that is computed anywhere in the table. The healthcare figure also seems a bit higher than medicare plus a 100% supplemental policy. Most of the debt free singles in my area that are retired and over age 65 get by on an average of $36,000 annually (some a tad higher/lower) If they only receive SS and get the average there ($1294 monthly) that means they have out of pocket expenses of around $20,500 annually. So if they have an investment nest egg of $2,000,000 they can live off their principal only if needed without the need of that Monte Carlo mumbo jumbo. If anything they better begin ramping up their retirement spending ala travel, a summer vacation rental, and the like unless they want to leave a lot to their heirs.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000091580215000027/financialinvestorstrustvulca.htm
497 1 financialinvestorstrustvulca.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
Vulcan Value Partners Fund (the “Fund”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 18, 2015 TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED AUGUST 31, 2014
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Prospectus for the Fund dated August 31, 2014. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at www.vulcanvaluepartners.com or calling us at 1.877.421.5078.
Effective as of the close of business on June 1, 2015, the Fund will close to new investors, except as described below. This change will affect new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund either directly or through third party intermediaries. Existing shareholders of the Fund may continue to purchase additional shares of the Fund.
*A financial advisor whose clients have established accounts in the Fund as of June 1, 2015, may continue to open new accounts in the Fund for any of its existing or new clients.
*Existing or new participants in a qualified retirement plan, such as a 401(k) plan, profit sharing plan, 403(b) plan or 457 plan, which has an existing position in the Fund as of June 1, 2015, may continue to open new accounts in the Fund. In addition, if such qualified retirement plans have a related retirement plan formed in the future, this plan may also open new accounts in the Fund.
The Fund retains the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close the Fund or limit inflows into the Fund.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

Just getting ready to walk out the door and go hiking and you start another one. I've always thought you need to be debt free (no mortgage, no rent, etc.) For a single retiree over age 65, $2,000,000 should do the trick and $3,000,000 for a couple. That's assuming your only income is Social Security and you don't live in some ultra expensive region of the country. It's also based on never making another penny in the market and conversely never losing another penny. Albeit I would hope your account can still compound, even if ever so slightly over those retirement years. Not a popular concept here, but you can control your losses in the market. On the other hand, I know many retirees who don't have even $100,000 but because of generous pensions and SS are living the good life. Dex, you are the master of interesting threads where there is never a right or wrong answer. Check in later this evening.

That other post about median net worth went off the rails - so ...
More info that just says to me the net worth numbers don't work.
http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2015/05/18/is-1-million-enough-retirement-average-american.aspx