Hi msf- Well, back then I wasn't covered by a pension, so it would have been in 75. Jeez, 2k was a LOT of money back then. Now that you mention it, after we were married we bought a brand-new 1970 Plymouth Valiant: cost, 2k!
We were also very fortunate that my wife, who was a SF public school teacher, was able to contribute to SS as well as the teacher's retirement fund. Not very many school districts offered that option; not a lot of SF teachers took it; now many wish that they had. Our American Funds adviser also set up a 403b for my wife, in addition to the retirement and SS. I guess that I'd better keep her. :-)

"there's been a plethora of noload funds for decades"
Certainly no argument on that observation. But let's take a look at the "ignorance factor". We have been saving as much as possible for retirement ever since we were married in 1970. We established IRAs as soon as possible, primarily using savings accounts for that purpose. (Remember them?)
I did attempt to venture into the equity market in a small way, with very mixed and generally poor results. As I've mentioned a few times before, in the late 70's with double-digit inflation roaring, I took a chance on some Munis paying 14/15%, figuring that if inflation couldn't be tamed that money would pretty quickly be worthless anyway. That turned out to be a great bet. For some years we took advantage of the San Francisco real-estate market with a lot of sweat-equity, and that too worked out well.
But mutual funds? Sure, we watched Lou Rukeyser along with lots of other folks, but that really didn't give us the depth of knowledge regarding funds to get our feet wet there. Along came an American Funds "adviser". Sure, they charged a load. Sure, he got his cut. But he sat with us for many an hour explaining the ways of the mutual fund world, and even though I really hated the load I regarded it as the price of entry and education.
American Funds has always treated us fairly. Unlike other load funds at that time, they did not charge any load on reinvested proceeds, and their ERs were (and still are) very reasonable. They allowed consolidation of the two IRAs and our trust fund to minimize the front load. After a few years we had accumulated enough to eliminate the load altogether. In 2008 the economic fiasco caused our American Funds total holdings to drop below the no-load threshold, but they still honored the no-load for us on additional investments.
Perhaps most importantly, our experiences with American have allowed us to have a sound basis for comparison as we have branched out into many other funds and fund types and companies. I don't for one minute regret our experiences with American Funds.

It's hard for me to read around the WSJ ad covering 80% of page and was unable to cut and paste the relevant passage. But, I'm very perturbed to read that Obama's 2015 budget would, if approved, make Roths subject to mandatory withdrawals at 70.5 the same as for traditional IRAs.
Let's hope that doesn't go through. Ability to defer withdrawals (and taxation) on that portion of retirement investment was the #1 reason I prepaid considerable taxes in order to convert a sizable portion of my Traditional to Roth only a few years ago. (My ... how quickly things can change.)
Issue here is financial "planning". I can invest and earn a decent return in a variety of ways (as can you). But, if government can change the rules in the middle of the stream ... how can anyone plan effectively for the future?
Edit: The thinking there is curious. Are they hoping for a court challenge as to whether the change could be applied retroactively? Than, if successful in court, perhaps implement the next stage - fully taxing Roth withdrawals? OMG - I'M beginning to sound like Fox News, :(

People should also be aware that inherited IRAs are no longer afforded bankruptcy protection per a Supreme Court ruling last week. Essentially the Court said they aren't "retirement money" if inherited. You can try to roll inherited IRAs over, but that has possible tax consequences.

Apparently, spouses may be affected by Court decision too if they do not roll over to their own account:
American Bar - Supreme Court Rules Inherited IRA Funds Not Exempt In Bankruptcy

"....
The case involves a daughter’s inherited IRA of a daughter and not that of a surviving spouse. The opinion implies that the surviving spouse’s rollover IRA is the person’s own IRA and thus exempt in bankruptcy but, if the surviving spouse does not rollover, then the IRA is an inherited IRA and subject to the same rules as an inherited IRA of a non-spouse beneficiary. The opinion says no more on that subject and does not address whether a surviving spouse’s rollover IRA is comprised of “retirement funds” or whether the surviving spouse’s inherited IRA does not have “retirement funds.” Since the funds would be the same in either case, that would be a difficult distinction. The opinion implies that if a surviving spouse does not rollover an IRA and thus does not make it his/her own IRA, the result would be the same as the daughter’s inherited IRA, as the IRA that is not rolled over by a surviving spouse is also an inherited IRA. The Court states: “If the heir is the owner’s spouse, as is often the case, the spouse has a choice: He or she may “roll over” the IRA funds into his or her own IRA, or he or she may keep the IRA as an inherited IRA (subject to the rules discussed below).”
...
Nevertheless, while not clear, the Court seems to imply that an IRA rolled over by a spouse beneficiary will be treated as the spouse's IRA, rather than an inherited IRA, and such IRA will be an exempt asset. If the spouse chooses to treat the IRA as an inherited IRA, however, it will not be an exempt asset."

My favorite is ASRIX. It holds stocks, bonds, preferreds and convertibles.
Available in a retirement account at Fidelity with low minimums.

My understanding is that an inheritance in the form of individual stocks is one of the best methods of helping your heirs manage tax burdens since the cost basis of the individual stocks inherited adjusts to correspond with the stock price on the date of death. This, at least, eliminates a generation (your life) of capital gains taxes for your heirs.

Yes, essentially your cost basis reverts to the current price through a step up basis when you inherit. That saves you paying the capital gains the deceased would have accumulated.
The Roth was one of those things where the government got it right. I'm not sure of any justification for requiring mandatory withdrawals for them. While you don't want wealth concentration, Roths are a tool for middle class families to stock away wealth in a tax beneficial manner. People don't get rich off them. So unless the administration is trying to encourage spending...?
People should also be aware that inherited IRAs are no longer afforded bankruptcy protection per a Supreme Court ruling last week. Essentially the Court said they aren't "retirement money" if inherited. You can try to roll inherited IRAs over, but that has possible tax consequences.

Hi Hank,
Sorry for my omission. Perhaps I could blame it on the aging process, but the probable cause was my haste to respond to your post. Indeed, I did fail to address your initial question.
My investment philosophy does not “ rule out use of "Target Date" funds (which adjust allocations over time)?”.
Even a dedicated passive Index proponent should never adopt a buy-and-hold-forever policy. Investors need to be flexible since things are in constant motion.
Not to be too dismal on this fine Sunday, but every day brings us a day closer to our mortality. As we age or approach a retirement date, our portfolios should reflect changing needs and risk factors.
Target Date mutual funds are specifically designed to address this reality. Some are better at this task than others, so research, that I have not done, is required. All Target Date funds are not created equally.
I do not consider the time horizon adjustments made by these Target Date funds to be a market timing mechanism. It is made to keep a portfolio inline with its portfolio goal. And everyone defines his own personal portfolio goals and objectives. The option to assemble your own date sensitive portfolio is always present.
One criticism of Target Date funds is that they are not specifically designed to satisfy the very special needs of individual investors. I don’t buy into that critique given the hundreds of Target Date products currently available at very low costs. The big plus for these funds is that they put the investment process on autopilot. That’s an advantage to a large fraction of the savings, but not investment oriented, population.
Every investor must be alert to changing needs, and to a changing market environment. I’m thinking now of major events that potentially impact long-term prospects, not the daily market noise perpetuated by the business news TV channels.
As John Maynard Keynes noted: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Economist Paul Samuelson added: “I hate to be wrong. But I hate more to stay wrong”. So do I.
Target Date funds are fundamentally not market timing operations; they are responding to a time horizon commitment. Nobody consistently can time the markets successfully. Bernard Baruch said it well: “Buying at the bottom and selling at the top are typically done by liars”. I buy into that bit of wisdom.
I hope this helps.
Best Wishes.

@jlev
Please let us know what they say. It certainly looks like a great majority of the monies collected with 12b-1s are going to broker-dealers. I'd be interested to know whether the move to only allow clients with funds held through GP's distributor to continue to contribute are to avoid complications with individual fund platforms, a move to eventually cut 12b-1s (or other fees), or both.
Pages 42-3 in GPROX's SAI discuss the 12b-1:

"Under the terms of the Plan, the Trust is authorized to make payments to the Distributor, as defined later in this SAI, for remittance to retirement plan service providers, broker-dealers, bank trust departments, financial advisors, and other financial intermediaries, as compensation for distribution and/or shareholder services performed by such entities for their customers who are investors in the Fund. Financial intermediaries may from time to time be required to meet certain criteria in order to receive 12b-1 fees. The Distributor is entitled to retain some or all fees payable under the Plan in certain circumstances (which may exceed actual expenses incurred), including when there is no broker of record or when certain qualification standards have not been met by the broker of record."

Amounts Expensed Under the 12b-1 Plan
For the fiscal year ended April 30, 2014, the total amounts paid by the Investor Class shares of each Fund to ADI (substantially all of which ADI paid out as compensation to broker-dealers and other service providers) under the Investor Class Plan are summarized below.

The sharks run fast in the retirement funding industry. Their prey is the worker with no knowledge of the subject of investing and there are plenty of them sadly.

Yeah, and how can you blame the worker? Investing is not taught in the schools as part of the required courses. One job I was on had a 401k plan administered by Fidelity. The employees were given choices of something like 75 actively managed funds, without information about each one other than what category it was in. From lots of different fund families, not just Fidelity.
Employee friends of mine would come up to me asking me which fund or funds to invest in, because they knew I had an interest and was studying mutual funds. As if I could advise them which actively managed funds they should invest in!
Way too many choices, no guidance, not a good situation.
Perhaps people with no clue should be directed to a target date fund based on when they plan to retire?
Human Resources should sponsor employee seminars regarding how to invest in their 401k plan.
Keep it simple. Some basic index funds covering different asset classes is a good idea. Don't overwhelm with tons of fund choices.

Back to the reps selling funds, one of my pet peeves was the practice of selling multiple fund of fund selections. Example; an employee would go through a questionnaire and determine they could handle a moderate asset allocation based on risk tolerance and such. With the fund of fund choices ranging from ultra conservative to very aggressive one could assume that the moderate fund could satisfy the need. The rep would instead divvy up the pay deductions across the entire range of funds. A little in aggressive, some in moderate and so forth. The end result was a moderate allocation. My impression was the end result was a bigger commission for the rep. The duplication on these funds was obvious. If someone questioned the reps, they would be given a toll free number to call and speak with a specialist who would set them straight.
The sharks run fast in the retirement funding industry. Their prey is the worker with no knowledge of the subject of investing and there are plenty of them sadly.

Reply to MJG - Thanks. What really prompted my post was the initial question and I don't see or understand how you answered it. Does your argument (if carried to its logical conclusion) exclude target date funds as viable investment vehicles?
Target date funds normally use a fairly "static" allocation to various assets (which might please you) but also change that allocation with age and perhaps to some degree depending whether one is currently in retirement.
I don't think your argument precludes changes in allocations as one progresses through his/her investment years and circumstances inevitably change - or does it?
Admittedly, my tendency to wander off in different directions may have obscured the initial question:)
Thanks for any clarification.

@Sven, I just test traded EVBIX again in my Fidelity SEP-IRA, and the minimum I see before placing the trade continues to be $500 + TF. Perhaps they have different minimums for specific retirement accounts.
Kevin

@kevindow, thank for the clarification. One would think Fidelity treats all retirement accounts the same. I will talk with the rep and they are really good with that. Thanks again.

I believe this is because @kevindow is doing this in a SEP-IRA, not a traditional IRA. In my IRA, it also says that the minimum is $250K, plus a transaction fee.
Of all the insults.......we not only have to come up with $250K, but will be charged a transaction fee to boot! [humor]

@kevindow, thank for the clarification. One would think Fidelity treats all retirement accounts the same. I will talk with the rep and they are really good with that. Thanks again.

@Sven, I just test traded EVBIX again in my Fidelity SEP-IRA, and the minimum I see before placing the trade continues to be $500 + TF. Perhaps they have different minimums for specific retirement accounts.
Kevin

Good point Jerry about 401(k) So here's a link including IRAs. Still not real encouraging
http://www.fidelity.com/inside-fidelity/employer-services/fidelity-analysis-highlights-balances-and-contribution-rates-of-combined-retirement-savings
And another link breaking down balances by age
http://www.401khelpcenter.com/press_2013/pr_fidelity_022713.html#.VAn0XsJdWSo

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000091580214000043/grandeurpeakglobalreachhardc.htm
497 1 grandeurpeakglobalreachhardc.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund
(the “Fund”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2014 TO THE PROSPECTUS
DATED AUGUST 31, 2014
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Prospectus for the Fund dated August 31, 2014. You should retain this Supplement and the Prospectus for future reference. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at www.grandeurpeakglobal.com or calling us at 1.855.377.PEAK (7325).
Effective as of the close of business on September 30, 2014, the Fund will close to all purchases, except as described below (the “Hard Closure”). The Hard Closure of the Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund means purchases will no longer be accepted into this Fund from either new or existing shareholders after September 30th, unless the purchase is part of one of the listed exceptions:
Institutional Shareholders:
•401k plans with an existing position
•Automatic rebalancing of an existing position (as long as purchase amounts are de minimis, as determined by Grandeur Peak)
Retail Shareholders (Direct Shareholders Only):
•Retirement Accounts
•Education Savings Accounts
•Minor Accounts (UTMA/UGMA)
•Pre-established Automatic Investment Plans
All Shareholders:
•Automatic reinvestment of the Fund distribution
These exceptions will be implemented wherever possible, but they may not be possible on all intermediary platforms.
As described in the Prospectus, the Fund’s investment adviser, Grandeur Peak Global Advisors, LLC, or the Fund each retains the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close a Fund or limit inflows into a Fund.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

For copyright reasons, I found the article link, which is below.
http://www.bottomlinepublications.com/content/article/wealth-a-retirement/faltering-funds

Stop investing in MM funds altogether? What nonsense? Someone in retirement does not want all his money in stocks/bonds. If he is raising his "cash" stake does not mean he is "invested" in MM funds. It is because one does not want to risk all capital "invested" in Stocks/bonds.
Second, all 401Ks do NOT offer Stable Value funds anymore. How can participants "look for stable value funds?".
Finally, incompetent regulators before coming up with such a rule need to also make 401k plan participants offer a CASH option. In IRAs at brokerages one has that option. In 401ks that does not have an option. If Stable Value fund is not available in 401k and MM funds are risky because they NAV can now float how is a retiree to safeguard wealth accumulated over the years?

FYI: (Follow-Up Article)
401(k) investors need to rethink money-market mutual funds
The Securities and Exchange Commission earlier this summer released new money-market mutual regulations that those saving for retirement might want to review, especially if they are among the millions who have invested on average anywhere from 2% to 6% of their 401(k) in such funds
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-safe-money-market-fund-may-be-at-risk-2014-09-02/print

@ VintageFreak Index funds may be the answer to your dilemma (not the drywall one)

Not sure I had any dilemma, but as I have said many times I do use index and balanced funds primarily in my retirement accounts.