@ 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.

From the link in MFO post, http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/14903/causeway-funds-in-registration#latest,
the following information was posted in their SEC filing:
"...The Fund expects to pay significantly increased taxable distributions of net short-term capital gain (that is, the excess of short-term capital gains over short-term capital losses) and net capital gain (that is, the excess of net long-term capital gain over net short-term capital loss) in 2014 due to its conversion
29
Table of Contents
in October 2014 from a “fund of funds” structure to directly investing in portfolio securities. This is because when it converted, the Fund redeemed shares in underlying Causeway Funds that had appreciated from the time the Fund purchased the shares, causing the Fund to realize capital gain during 2014. Taxable investors receiving the distributions should be prepared to pay taxes on them (at ordinary income rates for the net short-term capital gain and, for non-corporate shareholders, at the 15% and 20% maximum rates mentioned above for the net capital gain). However, if you are investing in the Fund through a tax-advantaged retirement plan or account, or are a tax-exempt investor, there will be tax consequences to you from those distributions. "

I have a neighbor who worked his 40 years as a federal employees. Yet his knowledge of saving for retirement is lacking to say the least. It is all too common that many do not wish to be informed and the are easy prey by these brokers.

FYI: John Turner suspected that brokers were encouraging federal workers to ditch their top-flight retirement plan. So he went undercover.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/as-brokers-urge-ira-rollovers-ex-workers-ditch-their-low-fee-federal-retirement-plan/2014/08/14/53c68dd0-2239-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html

Bee, according to a test trade I just made in my Fidelity retirement account, EVBIX is available for a $500 minimum with a $49.95 initial transaction fee.
Kevin

@Crash: a few observations..
"It's not a very big amount, a bit more than 6% of my portfolio." in professional asset management, this is a very big trade -- have no doubt. plus you're redeeming the more stable exposure to fund the frontier one....
on the other hand, 30% in one fund that is not a target-date or otherwise multi-asset fund is obscene, i agree. but your asset allocation and decision making seem a bit rushed. hope you have checked your portfolio composition via morning* or otherwise and are satisfied that it will meet your retirement or alternatively specified goals. good luck.

FYI: My youngest daughter was born 21 years ago this week. At the time, I called an economist named Mark Lino from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, who told me to expect to spend as much as $300,000 to get her to age 18; toss in college costs, and it was well past $500,000 to get her to adulthood.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-its-so-difficult-to-raise-kids-and-save-for-retirement-2014-08-22/print

Thanks for the link Ted...I enjoyed the "life of Riley Index" articles, and have bookmarked Scott Burns. It's good to place a bit of perspective on the retirement goal (which is very close).
Press

Hi Ted,
The fund that you mentioned (SHRAX) likely never made it to my candidates list way back in the early 1990s. I avoided front-end loaded mutual funds like the plaque that they are. I was reading John Bogle’s “Common Sense on Mutual Funds” in those days, and indeed agreed that costs mattered greatly.
The front-loaded funds were immediately discarded by me from further consideration. I probably interviewed a half dozen financial advisors during that period, and every single one of them recommended portfolios populated only by these costly products.
Our potential retirement war-chest was modest, and I was sickened at the prospects of reducing it immediately by a composite 5% to 6%. It would take years of positive outcomes to replace those unnecessary highway robbery charges. I still feel that way, but less so as my wealth substantially increased. Even then, I believe that I recognized that I was summarily tossing away some excellent fund managers.
I do like Ricky Freeman’s record and his tenure. It is outstanding. He definitely is a talented and skilled stock picker. I am especially impressed by his low portfolio turnover numbers. The man makes his choices, and he stays the course with them. He sticks to his guns. Good for him, and the record shows that it is good for his investors too.
Automatically discarding front loaded funds will eliminate some superior active fund managers. However, I suspect that from an overarching portfolio strategy, it probably does more good than harm.
That’s more than a naked opinion since the cumulative fund management data consistently demonstrates that, on an annual basis, only 20% to 40% of active mangers outdistance passive Index management. Integrated over time, those numbers deteriorate even more, not including the upfront fee. It’s a hard uphill road to overcome fees, and the odds do not favor the individual investor.
Thanks for your input.
Best Wishes.

........ but I think there will be an entry point in the next 6 months that even I can recognize.
.......one-time contribution to my new grandchild's retirement fund. $3K now presumably produces over $4M at 70, if it's shifted into a Roth when she starts earning money.

Yeah, the math is pretty compelling. Assuming any taxable distributions are paid from outside the account. Here's what happens to a one time investment of $3,000 assuming a rate of return of 10%, allowing for 70 years of compounding:
$3,000 invested at 10.0% annually for 70 years yields: $2,369,241
Interesting, that $3,00 is just the amount needed to invest in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund.......and imagine if the person holds that investment for 70 years. [Actually, you can invest in VTI, the etf version, with no minimum].
Regarding "I think there will be an entry point in the next 6 months".....just wondering what gives you this confidence of what will happen in the next 6 months? How much of a drop are you expecting, and how much would be an acceptable entry point for you?

While I like the phrase: "It's time in the market, not timing the market," I can't ignore Schiller's assessment of the market. My children's IRAs spring contributions languish in cash, earning far less than the 3+% quoted in the article, but I think there will be an entry point in the next 6 months that even I can recognize.
OTOH, I'm ambivalent about the timing of my one-time contribution to my new grandchild's retirement fund. $3K now presumably produces over $4M at 70, if it's shifted into a Roth when she starts earning money. I might open the account and add most of the money later. Guess it all depends on her parent's ability to keep her from closing the account prematurely.

The new Unconstrained funds everyone is jumping into?
Considering we are in a rising interest rate environment, which bonds if any will do better that others? What if you are close to or in retirement age? What to do.

The new unconstrained bond funds are in response to the fact that interest rates have gone down since September 1981, and they can't go down forever. We have been in a bull market for bonds lasting 33 years. On September 8, 1981, the 10-Year Treasury had a yield of 15.59%. Those who bought and held it made 15.59% each and every year for 10 years, risk free, then got their full principal back.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DGS10
The same 10-Year Treasury has a yield of 2.4% today.
The unconstrained funds typically have a lower duration, with the express purpose of decreasing interest rate sensitivity. A bond fund with a duration of 6 years will experience a 12% loss of NAV if the corresponding interest rates of those bonds rise 2%.
Add in the yield to that loss of NAV and the total return is calculated.
Full disclosure: I have no interest rate forecast nor will I ever have one.
In exchange for interest rate risk, the unconstrained bond funds, flexible income funds, "tactical income funds", or whatever you wish to call them, take on more credit risk.
Why do they have to take on more credit risk as a result of decreasing their duration/maturity? Because very high quality bonds, such as Treasuries, have such a low yield, that when you shorten the maturity of the bonds and subtract the expense ratio of the active bond fund, you are not left with much yield. Therefore, bank loans and junk bonds and other high credit risk securities enter into the portfolios of these mutual funds.

Okay I will jump in and start this thread. It seems to be way overdue.
So what about bonds and bond funds? The new Unconstrained funds everyone is jumping into? Gundlach?
Lots of questions here. Considering we are in a rising interest rate environment, which bonds if any will do better that others? Will the impact be short or long term? What if you are close to or in retirement age? What to do.
Dive in and post your opinions and suggestions.

FYI: So you have been bitten by the gold bug? Here are six easy ways to add a little gold to any portfolio — and the pros and cons of each. (Sources: GoldResource.net, SeekingAlpha.com, Morningstar Inc. and Kapitall Inc)
Regards,
Ted
1. Mutual Fund
The $70 million Gold Bullion Strategy Investor Fund (QGLDX) is currently the only mutual offering pure-play exposure to the price of gold. Launched 12 months ago, the fund gains exposure to the gold through a 25% allocation to gold futures contracts and a 75% weighting in short-term bonds.
Pros: Liquidity. Also works as an interest rate hedge. No transaction costs.
Cons: Above average expense ratio. Relatively untested strategy.
2. Exchange-Traded Funds
The financial services industry created multiple ways to generate long- or short-exposure to the price of gold. But, keep in mind, whether the various exchange-traded products are offering long or short exposure, they are essentially designed to track the price of gold, as opposed actually owning the precious metal.
Pros: Inexpensive to own and easy to buy, with all-day liquidity. A good vehicle for traders.
Cons:Transaction costs. Most company-sponsored retirement plans still do not offer exchange-traded product
3. Gold bullion
There is no greater commitment to gold investing than direct ownership and possession of gold coins and bullion.
Pros: A sense of security like none other, assuming you have a secure storage facility. The best price you’ll get when buying physical gold.
Cons: There is a mark-up when purchasing bars and ingots, and when selling you might need to hire a professional appraiser. Bullion is also less liquid than coins, and can be difficult to use as an actual currency for smaller purchases.
4. 4. Gold coins
Coins introduce a different level of physical gold ownership because the value is affected by multiple factors, including brand, country of origin, and supply of specific coin brands by location.
Pros: When demand for gold is high, gold coins can sell at a premium to the price of gold. Can be used as currency.
Cons: Easy to purchase, but there is usually a steep convenience upcharge, and the spreads rarely favor smaller investors.
5. Futures and options
Not for the meek or inexperienced investor, trading futures and options is considered among the best ways to make money in gold, assuming you have a solid understanding of how it’s done. It is a strategy best left to the professionals.
Pros: A lot of money can be made without putting up a lot capital, because this is a market designed for speculators.
Cons: You can lose your shirt in a hurry.
6. Gold-mining stocks
A less direct way to gain exposure to the price of gold, mining company stocks generally benefit from rising gold prices, but the correlation can be unpredictable because of other factors driving revenues and profits.
Pros: There is usually dividend income. The stocks can sometimes outperform gold prices.
Cons: Transaction costs for buying and selling the securities. There is always a risk that the company stock prices will move way out of step with the price of gold.

Despite the changes that management might make in the portfolio, many investors could benefit from professional asset allocation and daily automatic rebalancing. I especially like Vanguard TDFs with their annual expense ratios of only 16 basis points. They work well in a qualified retirement plan.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/102816/000094039414001195/multicap_growthfundspprosupp.htm
497 1 multicap_growthfundspprosupp.htm MULTICAP_GROWTH_FUND_SP_PRO_SUPP_DTD_8_20_14
Eaton Vance Multi-Cap Growth Fund
Supplement to
Prospectus dated January 1, 2014 and
Summary Prospectus dated January 1, 2014
On September 19, 2014, Eaton Vance Multi-Cap Growth Fund will discontinue all sales of its shares, except shares purchased by: (1) existing shareholders (including shares acquired through the reinvestment of dividends and distributions); (2) employer sponsored retirement plans; or (3) fee-based programs (a) sponsored by financial intermediaries for which investment decisions are made on a centralized basis at the discretion of the firm (e.g., model portfolios managed by a firm or its investment committee); and (b) that have selected the Fund prior to the close of business on September 19, 2014.
August 20, 2014
16011 8.20.14

Well, for what it's worth, and IM<HO, it is open in many retirement accounts. I just started a new 401k with my new employer and Wellington is where I'm putting the money. Principal is the financial institution handling the 401k.

From Boglehead.org:
"The fund was created in 1985. In 1987 the New York Times noted: [2]
In the past two years, a number of firms have revived the 1960's fund-of-funds approach, in which a money manager invests in a variety of mutual funds, rather than directly in stocks or bonds... The Vanguard Group was one of the first organizations to revive the fund-of-funds concept when it offered its STAR Fund, which invests in shares of Vanguard's other mutual funds.
According to posters in the Bogleheads forum, STAR is an acronym for "Special Tax-Advantaged Retirement," although it was never limited to retirement accounts; it is one of a group of seven Vanguard funds each of which is formally a "portfolio" within a single "trust," an arcane fact of no practical importance"
Another unimportant fact...

Hi Bob C. Thanks for your response. It rings very true - years ago when we started our retirement savings we used...gasp...variable annuities. When we finally realized our mistake it took us 8 YEARS to gradually get out.
Anyway I have asked her to read all the responses including of course yours. It is interesting that you mention the equity index and the mid cap as those also caught my eye with particular attention to the ER and the 10 year returns. If she splits equally between the 2, her ER will average out about .5 - could be better but its not horrible.

These are horrible options, unfortunately. MetLife and Valic are the worst. TIAA-CREF is passable, but tell your DIL to NEVER put dollars in the TIAA guaranteed option. Once dollars are in that account, they cannot be moved to the CREF side. They can only be withdrawn over a ten-year time period at retirement. CREF has some ok funds, but I would avoid the Lifestyle funds altogether. And their emerging markets, managed allocation, and small cap funds are very weak. Stick with Social Choice Equity, Mid Cap Value, or Equity Index funds. Different institutions have different fund options available to participants. Just keep in mind that TIAA-CREF treats investors' dollars are their own. At retirement, they can make it very difficult to move dollars out of their custodianship. Unfortunately, insurance companies have a stranglehold on 403b options. If the college has a deferred compensation option (457), she might be better served with that, since T. Rowe Price and a handful of other fund companies have staked out claims to that territory. So...best bet is a 457 plan with a decent fund company. If that is not possible, TIAA-CREF is best 403b option, but stay away from TIAA account.