Willmatt72, these people are being entirely too nice. 40% bonds at age 49 with 15 years to retirement and GMO predicting negative returns against inflation for bonds? I'd need a lot of melatonin to sleep well.
At least look at target maturity bond ETFs for a significant portion of your bond allotment (unless you already are in them). You might be made whole at maturity.
25% cash might be a good idea this quarter (perhaps up to the mid-term elections), but you need to average in to equities with some of your cash sooner or later, perhaps the dividend ETFs, considering your risk aversion. (Or you can put it in Berwyn.)

Less risk than a $100k portfolio and more risk than a $10M portfolio. :-)
But seriously, any meaningful answer to this will depend on your income situation until you retire (how much and how likely it will continue) and whether you can save from it or need to supplement it from your savings and how much of that is in tax deferred accounts. Also what kind of retirement income you will need for your standard of living, etc.
If you Google for "retirement planner" you will find any number of tools that will let you plug in all of that information and give you an idea of how long it will last for your circumstances and requirements and what growth you might need for your portfolio to satisfy those requirements. You then construct a portfolio that potentially gives you that growth taking the minimm risk necessary for it. For example, if you need a 6-8% annualized growth, you will likely need a moderate allocation portfolio.
Or you could wait for someone here to do all that calculation for you. :-)

I'm just curious about your thoughts about what kind of risk is acceptable for a 49-year old about 15 years from retirement with a $1.1 million portfolio. I have very little debt (owe $120,000 on a mortgage on a $425,000 condo near Boston). Personally, I don't believe it makes sense to take any unnecessary risk so I've been about 40% bond funds, 35% equity funds, 25% cash. One of my goals has been to generate some income to help pay bills, etc. But I'm equally focused on capital preservation. Losing 25% of principle in one year is not acceptable to me at this point. If you are in a similar situation or feel comfortable providing input, it would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Successful investors save regularly and routinely.

Good reminder - "good habits". Many failed to contribute to the retirement account (401(K), 403(b) and etc) even to level to get the maximum company match (i.e. free money). Same goes for saving for kids college funds via 529 accounts rather than future dollars from saving accounts.

LOL- We live in an age of "slicing & dicing."
I'd suggest that a very good "older" manager is still a lot better than a half-dozen younger but untested or even incompetent ones. And, an older "bloated", but extremely well diversified and well managed fund, having very low expenses might still be preferable to one of those smaller newfangled "modern management" types sporting high ERs. (Why does Garrett Van Wagoner come to mind here:-)
It would take volumes of data and analysis to dissect properly what the author purports to do - and I'd still be very skeptical. 1980 to the present generally featured several strong bull markets along with generally declining interest rates. Suspect different approaches and skill sets prosper in that environment than in a less robust or generally recessionary environment with persistently rising rates.
The period was also marked by much higher participation in markets by retail investors than prior to 1980 due to both the advent of the 401K which largely replaced defined benefit pensions and also due to the baby boomers nearing retirement. There's a difference between managing funds with gradually growing asset bases than funds that are essentially flat or experiencing outflows.
This is sure to add fodder to the passive index camp, but I don't think it necessarily needs to. And, the whole idea of analyzing individual manager traits under a microscope strikes me as ill-suited for some of the larger fund firms having deep management benches, defined organizational culture/structures, and their own strong in-house research. Some like D&C openly promote a team-based management approach. Others, like Price, while touting certain "fund managers", essentially rely very much a team-based approach.

Ha! Love you guys. May be you are right. Perhaps we generate no less entropy after retirement...then when we were full-fledged producing members of society.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1464413/000146441314000090/r497e0314.htm
497 1 r497e0314.htm STARBOARD INVESTMENT TRUST - PRESIDIO MULTI-STRATEGY FUND
STARBOARD INVESTMENT TRUST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presidio Multi-Strategy Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prospectus Supplement
March 11, 2014
This supplement to the prospectus dated September 30, 2013 for Presidio Multi-Strategy Fund, a series of the Starboard Investment Trust, updates the prospectus to include additional information as described below. For further information, please contact the Fund toll-free at 1-800-773-3863. You may obtain additional copies of the prospectus and statement of additional information, free of charge, by writing to the Fund at Post Office Box 4365, Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27803 or calling the Fund toll-free at the number above.
This supplement is to notify shareholders, prospective investors, and other interested parties that that the Presidio Multi-Strategy Fund will discontinue operations on April 10, 2014. On March 11, 2014, the Fund’s Board of Trustees, in consultation with the Fund’s investment advisor, CV Investment Advisors, LLC, determined that the dissolution and liquidation of the Fund is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders. In accordance with the decision, the Board of Trustees has directed that (i) all of the Fund’s portfolio securities be liquidated in an orderly manner and (ii) all outstanding shareholder accounts on April 10, 2014 be closed and the proceeds sent to the shareholder’s address of record or to such other address as directed by the shareholder, including special instructions that may be needed for individual retirement accounts and qualified pension and profit sharing fund accounts. As of the date of this supplement, the Fund is ceasing the sale of new shares and will no longer accept purchase orders. The Fund will accept redemption orders until April 10, 2014.
This will be considered a sale of Fund shares and shareholders should consult with their own tax advisors to ensure its proper treatment on their income tax returns. In addition, shareholders invested through an individual retirement account or other tax-deferred account should consult their own tax advisors regarding the reinvestment of these assets.
Shareholders may direct any questions about their account to the Fund at 1-800-773-3863.

I'm enjoying all this deep thought from many of our great minds here. Unfortunately, I'm neither skilled in investing nor lucky. As for my non-existent skills, I've never bought, sold, or owned a single individual stock. And as for bad luck, was out fishing just a few days ago on the Marathon Lady while vacationing in Florida. I can tell you the fellas standing right next to me on BOTH sides got far more bites and reeled in far more fish than I did. For that matter - just about everyone on the whole #*!# boat caught more fish.
Nonetheless, based on solid recommendations from friends, co-workers and some sharp people at Fund Alarm, I ended up with most of my retirement savings invested with three very good houses: T. Rowe Price, Dodge & Cox, and Oakmark. So, any "success" I may have enjoyed came not from my skills or from Lady Luck, but from the fine managers these firms hire and cultivate to manage people's money. Oh well ... there were those recommendations I mentioned. So I'd suggest that one critical place where luck comes into play in all our lives is in the associations we happen into - be if through our places of work or in other haphazard ways.
Where I'd really enjoy continued exploration of this overriding theme is in how people think luck, skill, or other factors impacted the results achieved by some prominent money managers. On the positive side I'd cite the legendary John Templeton and Peter Lynch. It's funny, but during his active years I never thought of Templeton as lucky or skillful - though suppose he was both. No, instead I viewed him as an eternal optimist who believed the human condition would continue to improve around the world and that this continuous improvement would somehow lift the value of good solid companies along the way. Don't remember Lynch quite as well - but always felt he was largely a very lucky fella who happened to be in the right place at the right time. Though, no doubt he possessed a certain degree of skill. For a hapless sole, I'll cite John Hussman, who has managed largely only to loose money for his investors over the past decade. Now, has Hussman been unlucky, unskillful or both? Or is there, perhaps, a totally different reason for his lack of success?
Quote: "The fault Dear Brutus is not in our stars ..."

So... a 25 year old buying established companies that pay dividends. Smart move.
I only wish I would have bought stocks like that when I was 25. Those were the type of stocks my dad would buy as he was approaching retirement. But I couldn't be bothered with that. However, I finally learned that my dad was smarter than I gave him credit for at the time. JNJ and PG sitting in a brokerage account kicking off and reinvesting divi's for more than 30 years would now be a dream.

Unfortunately, people always make decisions based on recent past than on future.
In an unprecedented time when capital has trounced labor in returns, tax treatment and political clout and likely to continue for at least another 4-5 years before there is a serious backlash, millenials are better off choosing the best path to accumulation of capital and growing it now in the favorable environment than hoping for average salaried labor to make their retirement.
This means taking jobs in tech or finance that have outsized salaries with risk but a potential for making enough for a lifetime in a few years and doing this when they are still young and THEN having the option to do whatever they want later in life when the money they have accumulated is working for them without having to do much.
Traditional approach has been to do the opposite and will lead to a very difficult retirement and a lifelong struggle for most.
I am not saying this is the way it should be because it is a distortion of life but it is exploiting the current situation so they can do much good later on when they are financially secure.
Most millenials seem to be doing the opposite.

This may be a better idea. It isn't perfect but it is something to learn from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2013/08/19/to-solve-the-u-s-retirement-crisis-look-to-australia/

Washington could craft a better retirement plan if they would take the Ponzi scheme which is Social Security and privatize it and have others outside of Government come up with rules for investing in equities. The funds should belong to the worker. The worker should NOT be able to withdraw or borrow from it for any reason, prior to retirement. If the worker passes before the funds are depleted, the remaining funds would rollover to their heirs. Of course, provisions would need to be made for those who can't do for themselves, but even this percentage should not be trusted to politicians.

Washington can craft a better retirement plan for people without much money than private sector can for them (not enough RoI there). Private sector can craft a better retirement plan for people with money than Washington can for the same people (not efficient or accountable). Also applies to most things.

This bill, conceptually, sounds like a great idea to me. But I agree with John that there is no safe-guard for government raiding the funds for other "needs" - ones that get them reelected.
Expanding or relaxing rules around IRA's doesn't really get to the problem of getting more people to prepare for retirement though. That would help those that have the means to save, which is great, but it doesn't help lower income earners that seem doomed to hit retirement age without sufficient money.
Great idea, but would never get Republican support because it comes from a Democrat. If the bill was proposed by a Republican, Democrats wouldn't support it. God, are doomed...

After my parents reached the point that age was affecting their ability to make good decisions I took over the management of all family money and affairs. Since, their investments had reached critical mass and they had made good choices in preparing for retirement there was not a need to draw down investment principal.
My strategy was a simple one. I took 1.25% per quarter from the portfolio’s closing valuation and moved this sum to a cash reserve and disbursement account. When the money was needed it was easily accessed … and, I never had a cash crunch. Some quarters I drew upon reserves and sometimes I did not but I continued to fund the reserve account as I described above even when it was not needed. And, oh by the way, I grew the investment principal, over time, so the amount taken each quarter for the most part grew in size.
Now that I have reached retirement, I plan to do much the same; and, I have started my distribution rate at 0.75% per quarter to fund my cash reserve and disbursement account.
Old_Skeet

Just what we need, another federal behemoth of waste. Does anyone think this money would be in a lockbox just for people's retirement? Govt just loves to spend our money and they cannot stand to see money just sitting there.
A better idea would be to expand and relax rules on IRAs etc so people can contribute more.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/187869-can-washington-craft-a-better-retirement-plan

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=638252

I was terribly hurt by Artio International (I think the old symbol was BJBIX and prior to Artio it was owned by Julius Baer). I thought Rudolph Younes and Richard Pell walked on water, as I lost 50% of my investment. And to add insult to injury, because I held it in a retirement account, I could not deduct the loss.
From all the funds I have owned, if there was ever one that I thought couldn't go so far south and stay there, it was this fund. How wrong I was!
Mona

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/916488/000091648814000004/p-10314.htm
497 1 p-10314.htm 490 P-1 03-14
490 P-1 03/14
SUPPLEMENT DATED MARCH 3, 2014
TO THE CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE PROSPECTUS
OF
Templeton Asian Growth Fund
(Templeton Global Investment Trust)
The Prospectus is amended as follows:
The following paragraphs are added to the “Fund Summary” and “Fund Details” sections:
On February 25, 2014, the Board of Trustees of Templeton Global Investment Trust on behalf of Templeton Asian Growth Fund approved a proposal to terminate and liquidate the Fund.
Effective at the close of market on March 18, 2014, the Fund is closed to new investors. Existing investors who had an open and funded account on March 18, 2014 can continue to invest through exchanges and additional purchases. Effective at the close of market on May 13, 2014, the Fund will be closed to additional investments from existing shareholders, except for purchases made through reinvestment of dividends or capital gains distributions. Re-registration of accounts held by existing investors, if required for legal transfer or administrative reasons, will be allowed.
The liquidation is anticipated to occur on or about May 20, 2014 (Liquidation Date). Except for retirement plan accounts, shareholders with accounts in the Fund on the Liquidation Date will have their accounts liquidated and the proceeds will be delivered to them.
Shareholders may exchange their Fund shares for shares of other Franklin Templeton funds, consistent with the Fund’s prospectus, prior to the Liquidation Date. An exchange out of the Fund prior to the Liquidation Date, or liquidation, may be considered a taxable transaction for nonretirement plan accounts. Shareholders should consult their tax advisor regarding the effect of the Fund’s liquidation in light of their individual circumstances. Participants in retirement plan accounts will receive further information regarding the handling of the liquidation. In considering new purchases or exchanges, shareholders may want to consult with their financial advisors to consider their investment options.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fund reserves the right to modify this policy at any time.
Please keep this supplement for future reference.