These funds may be harder to find (without a load), than people think.
I have verified that TTRZX (and TGBAX) are available at Firstrade, as Kevin stated.
But, while Schwab shows TGTRX as NTF, Schwab only offers these shares to institutional investors. When I try to find a world bond fund from F-T available to retail investors, Schwab just comes back with TPINX (with front end load), TEGBX (with a level load, and limited to redemptions), and Class C of Templeton Total Global Return (also with a level load). That last one is worth highlighting, because sometimes Schwab using its own internal tickers for funds. Here it is using TTR1Z instead of the standard TTRCX. Perhaps Schwab also has its own symbol for the TGTRX shares that it sells to retail customers?
Just as C shares are level loads, apparently so are the R (retirement) class shares FGBRX. These charge so much in 12b-1 fees, that like C shares, they must be called load funds. Those extra fees likely go to paying the retirement plan provider, so that the employer sponsoring the plan doesn't have to pay for the plan. (They're also offered in 529 plans and HSAs, where the fees would similarly go to the provider of the plan.)
So as near as I can see, the only way right now to get access (at the retail level) to noload open end versions of Hasenstab funds is to go through Firstrade. (They're in Flushing, Queens for anyone who wants to walk in.)

Reply to @Art: There are RMDs on inherited Roths.
In fact, the RMD amount is more severe - you may wind up using the single life expectancy table rather than the usual uniform life expectancy table. In addition, once you start the RMD, you have to subtract a full year (from your expected lifetime for the RMD calculation) each successive year (instead of looking up your new expected lifetime, which will have decreased by less than a year).
And it gets (slightly) worse. The earnings are still taxable if the (original) Roth wasn't around for at least five years. That's usually not a problem, because you take out contributions first, and in the first few years of withdrawals, that's all you'll be tapping.

To me investments are a way of funding future (retirement) opportunities or obligations. I tend to look closely at my personal retirement obligations...taxes, premiums, monthly bills, loan payments, etc. My goal is to have enough retirement income ( from part time work income, SSI / pension, and investments to cover my monthly bills). If I am lucky, smart, or inspired my investments may also help fund my favorite charities, family member's goals (weddings, schooling, reunions, etc.), or any other great idea (travel to the moon, salt and pepper shaker collecting, salsa dance lessons, etc.) I want to consider.
As far as the longeveity of today's funds, I believe funds managed by comittee often have a good chance of a long life. Index ETFs or Index funds do seem to get rid of this decision by comittee dynamic. These investments also usually carry a low ER (expense ratio) making the costs a good long term choice. The "flavor of the day fund" may not be tomorrow's favorite fund so I see these not being a good choice for a "perpetuity account".
Finally, I would consider this account being a Roth account. It would give you the flexibility while you are alive to access this account without tax penalty (review these IRS rules) as well as providing a tax free inheritance for your heirs.
As an aside, if my parents had invested in VWELX back in 1929 with a $10,000 investment it would now be worth almost $7M today...the power of compounding over time.

Three current / impending changes:
Bill Frels at Mairs & Power Growth (oddly, no word about Balanced)
Preston Athey at T. Rowe Price Small Cap Value
Jesper Madsen at Matthews Asia Dividend
Morningstar is reasonably sanguine about each. They maintained the rating on Growth, seem to be maintaining the rating at Balanced, and ding Price and Matthews by one notch.
For no apparent reason, Kinnel dredges up the rocky manager change 16 months ago at Columbia Value and Restructuring (UMBIX) where long-time manager David Williams announced his retirement for the end of 2012, they moved it up to April 2012 and the new management team completely restructured the fund into a clone of another they run.
For what it's worth,
David

I also agree with the "one pie" theory for asset allocation, that is counting all your accounts as one pie. The majority of people have their retirement funds with different companies. One service that made it easier for me is Personal Capital. https://www.personalcapital.com
I have no connection with the company, I just use the service. It's free and it claims to be secure. I haven't had any issues with it and I get daily emails regarding my accounts and transactions. A good thing to have if you are overseas like I am and need to keep tabs on your ATM accounts as well as your investments.

I agree with the principle (mentally aggregate all retirement accounts when doing asset allocation - pick the best investments available in each account rather than try to get the same allocations in each of the accounts).
However, you may find that your employer (for a 401K plan) or your brokerage (for an IRA plan) will try to "help" you by telling you that the one account of yours that they see (which is only a part of your portfolio) is way out of whack. Ignore them.

Hi Guys,
The excitement building for the upcoming MFO Fund Rating system is palpable. I too eagerly anticipate its complete publication. It will be a useful investment resource that is unique for MFO members. Good stuff.
The ubiquitous problem puzzling all mutual fund holders is the quagmire associated with finding a superior fund manager. In a sense, it is a task that is very similar to hiring any new employee.
Identifying superior management talent is an elusive chore. Given the poor past performance of active fund mangers, the odds are not tilted to favor the private investor.
The incoming MFO Fund Rating tables should make that arduous chore a lot easier.
The MFO team has done yeomen work in designing and assembling this magnificent resource. I really do like what I have seen. With the exception of a single column, it is data intensive. The one exception is “David’s Take”. Obviously, David’s Take is not data; it is a summary opinion.
I do not object to anyone expressing an investment opinion, especially our fair and well-informed website master. I will always value his opinion highly.
However, to establish a confidence in that judgment, I must know and understand precisely how that opinion was determined.
What factors differentiated the three definitive groupings: Positive, Mixed, Negative? Some investors will make choices based on the single entry. How does David arrive at this overarching fund judgment?
What specific criteria does he apply to each grouping? Are the criteria uniformly applied? Is it always dependent upon a face-to-face interview? If it is, a cautionary comment is warranted. Academic studies have concluded that interviews can distort and finally influence selection choices in a negative manner. Polished shoes and friendly manners do not necessarily map into exception stock selection talent.
I recognize that any “positive” assessment is no direct buy endorsement, but it can easily be interpreted as such by novice investors or infrequent visitors to the MFO website. There’s some danger if that column is not carefully defined and qualified. The over abundance of “positive” ratings could be troublesome.
Considering historical data sets, David Snowball’s optimistic “positive” rating assignments statistically conflicts with new fund survival rate data. David’s numbers are out of balance when compared to reality. Fund survival rate stats are available from many sources. Here is a Link to the 2012 S&P SPIVA report that includes a survivorship segment:
http://www.spindices.com/documents/spiva/spiva-us-year-end-2012.pdf
From that report: “ The turmoil of the past five years saw nearly 27% of domestic equity funds, 23% of international equity funds and 18% of fixed income funds merge or liquidate.” That’s a worrisome statistic.
That finding, which is consistent over numerous timeframes, is dismal. It warns against projecting overly optimistic assessments of fund management. Active fund success is a rare quality. John Bogle and the Investment Company Institute have frequently emphasized this negative aspect to actively managed funds.
There is an overwhelmingly high percentage of “positive” ratings in the “David’s Take” column of the MFO summary tables ( see the August MFO Commentary contribution from Charles). It lists a total of 77 fund reviews. From that subset of mutual fund reviews David liked 62 funds (80.5 %), was neutral on 12 funds (15.6 %), and disliked 3 funds ( 3.9 %).
In the future, that will not be representative of all the rated fund’s combined long-term performance or resiliency. That generous generic assessment flies against the headwinds of historical results. Many of these funds will not survive a 5-year trial-by-fire exposure. The markets are brutal masters.
Projecting new mutual fund successes is in soothsayer territory. It is a chancy business, both for the soothsayer himself and for those acting on his forecasts. A more conservative approach would be to patiently await actual real world test data, collected over at least even a modest 3-year period, before judging any new manager.
Consequently, my current conclusion is that a major disconnect will develop between David’s overall “positive” assessments and historical fund performance/survival. A few will prove their mettle; many others will disappoint or perhaps disappear.
Only one-third of actively managed funds outperform passive Index benchmarks annually. Those who do rotate towards the mean without long-term persistency. The superior performers over a 5-year cycle drop to under 20 % of the active manager universe.
I really do respect Professor Snowball and his work ethic. When I say his work product is outstanding I’m defaulting to military terminology. It doesn’t get any better than an “outstanding” commendation. But projecting fund performance is hazardous duty, and most who do tackle a daunting task.
It is far less risky to buy a fund manger with an established track record than to commit your fortune or retirement to someone without a recognized record, but only a sweet-sounding story. Being early into the game is not necessary for true investors.
Experience matters most. Damon Runyon said it perfectly in his “Guys and Dolls” musical: “It may be that the race doesn’t always go to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet”. In this instance, the swift and the strong are past mutual fund winners.
Remain patient and discriminating guys.
Best Regards.

Reply to @VintageFreak: You are singing my song. Much of what you describe has happened to me. I'm lucky in that I (and wife) had somewhere to land and re-start, after the shit hit the fan. Now she's the primary income producer. She has a retirement plan at work which operates in a strange way. Every year that she works X number of hours, a percentage of that yearly wage-figure gets deposited in a mutual fund of our choosing, from off their approved list. The plan is run by Mass Mutual, operated as an ANNUITY. I fail to see how that is an advantage to anyone.... The choices are not wonderful, not ideal. Rather than use their default-choice--- a MM fund, we chose Vanguard's Small-cap Index fund. It has its own special weird, unique ticker symbol, because it's tied to the hospital's plan, run by Mass Mutual. I guess I went pretty far afield with this reply. Sorry.

Reply to @mcmarasco: Please don't take this the wrong way. I WISH I had 20 years before retirement. By that I mean I hope I can keep job for next 20 years. And beyond, but you can never really have enough money, IMO. Especially when you actually work for it. My fantasy is I keep working and drop dead at work, quick, painless and without causing prolonged grief for my family or saddled with hospital bills.
IMHO, one big reason people retire without enough is because they rely on the bulls*** fed to them. Assumptions of asset allocation, assumption about how much market will return on average (till it does not), about buy and hold, etc, and most of all because at 35 people are told they will work till 65. Then at 55 you lose your job and never get the same one back and maybe don't get to contribute to 401k to cost average and compound like expected. And all your calculations go to hell. And then of course throw a couple of 50% drops in the stock market in for good measure.
I think THIS is the most important lesson people need to learn. Loosing a lot of money at ANY point in time is a BIG problem even with compounding. People have lost 50% of their 401ks TWICE in the past 14 years. Even if they could have managed to lose just 25% each of those two times, the difference that would make with compounding by the time they retire at 55 or 65 would be more significant than anything else.
Personally, I no longer invest based on any assumptions of average returns over the coming years. I solely do so in trusting managers who eat their own cooking and hope that increases my chances of succeeding in my investments.
Best.

GREAT reponses from ALL, thank you!!!!
I have 20 years before retirement and am a growth investor for the most part. I can tolerate some volatility and stayed in the market during the last big swoon.
But what seems (to me) to be a bit of "irrational exuberance" and complacency (measured by VIX<13) has me concerned and confused. I can handle a downturn (7%-10%) but i feel the further we rise straight-up the deeper the correction; maybe 15% - 20%. That I don't want to get caught in but I certainly would invest at that point though!!!
I'm not a market timer by any stretch, but buying on significant dips seems to make a lot of sense and often works from what i see.
Like I stated before, I do believe there is "light at the end of the tunnel", but IMHO, not in the imminent future. What is going to happen whe QE3 ends, interest rates rise, etcetera??
Any futher thoughts and comments are very welcome!!

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323734304578543413819169562.html#printMode

Reply to @Ted: Well, as I've mentioned before, this is not a "retirement" portfolio... retirement is safely under control. It's merely an investment portfolio, and I'm not needing or looking for maximum return... merely a decent return, and I've no complaints on that score. I do wish you well... just be ready to jump if things get a little shaky.

Reply to @MJG: Good thoughts. Those few funds that are performing well now may not do so well in the future too. The investosphere (a new word) is changing each day. Yesterdays glory hound may well be tomorrows dog.
We are in a transition period for the labor society as the new normal for retirement funding begins. Those who are aware will do well in investing their leftover money. Those who want to depend on others to save for them may be surprised and left out. This will be harder as most new jobs do not pay as well as the ones that are disappearing. The trick is to funnel ones self into a career path that has promise for the future. Doctors? Not likely. Tech and biotech? More likely.

Howdy Junkster,
Before I crash into a pillow; as my very tired head is fully full of meaningless fluff tonight, I presume the balances shown for those age 60-75 are for an individual.
If this is the case, then it is possible that one could double the values for a household; or perhaps add at least 50% to the total values.
And we don't know anything else about these numbers for these folks.....pensions, etc.
Another point that could have been added to the numbers is how many folks who choose to save for retirement; must now save via a 401k or similar; as the majority of defined pension programs started to go away about 10 years ago. No 401k or Roth IRA means only social security in the end. One would expect 401k and similar numbers to increase from the demise of defined pension programs. 'Course, Fido and I are only talking about those who can affort the money for a 401k. Too many new jobs don't even get one a small health benefit; let alone access to a 401k. Let alone enough money left for more than daily living, eh? $15 or less per hour really is not a hell of alot of money after taxes; based upon full time hours of 2080/year.
Excuse please.....I wandered a bit off the ranch at the end.
Regards,
Catch

mcmarasco: Thanks for the thoughts. I've no idea your age or other circumstances, so can't say whether your stated 20% cash position is appropriate for you - but 20% would seem a reasonable amount for many. For some too high. And for others too little. At 68 and many years into retirement I'm comfortable with the approach that has evolved over past 20 years and at this time my cash position is somewhat higher than yours. Another thing here, there's a number of different definitions of "cash" on the board. FWIW - Mine is split between an ultra-short bond and a conservative multi-sector income fund.
The only point I'd make is that having a well thought out plan is what really matters. Sounds like you have one. I don't fret much which way Mr. Market's going to go this week - or even this year. It's immensely entertaining and often instructive as well. But over the decades we'll hopefully be investing, the immediate market gyrations are litte to get excited about. I've lived through the crash of '87, the market mania of the 90s. the tech bubble and subsequent wreck of 2000, the Bush v. Gore mess, the aftermath of 9-11, and the 50% pummeling of '07-09. So, what's new? Markets go up. Market's go down.
Like Skeeter and some others, I attempt to go a bit lighter on equities in heady markets and put the $$ to work in down markets. The sums involved are relatively small, but I feel better doing that, and it's been somewat effective for a long time now. These in-between time spans can seem painfully long, and that's what I'm picking up as the sounce of your frustration. Regards

Reply to @Skeeter:
Skeeter,
How is this first summer of retirement treating you?
Not sure what to think of all this banter back and forth about the market going up and down. Ted has been right on many occasions before but my crystal ball is broken right now. The time to buy was 2008.
How come buy low and sell high does not apply to bond funds? Or does it?
Art
...But Gaffney says rates are headed higher, and that outflows will be tremendous when the market registers that the economy has real traction—something she expects sooner, rather than later. "It's dicey, but there's opportunity if you have the right tools and experience going into markets when they are breaking—and I do see a lot of breaks coming my way......When interest rates rise and investors start to flee, she is ready with money—36% of the new bond fund is in cash—and a wish list of specific securities she expects investors to dump in the short term, but that she says will prove to be good investments over three to five years.
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052748704836204578340063783260022.html#articleTabs_article=1

Reply to @Junkster: Yes, yes, ALL l/s funds are bad.
I'm really not liking PHMDX's 21% YTD gain. MFLDX's 10% gain with minimal volatility is really awful.
There are really some blanket statements regarding sectors/strategies on this board and a mentality - especially surprising on a board full of those in/near retirement age - that seems be: absolutely everything should be an aggressive investment and anything remotely more conservative has no place in a portfolio whatsoever.
Good luck with however you choose to invest.

Reply to @Ted: Ha! You know me too well.
But it would not make the cut given MJG's criteria above, nor does it rate top honors in the MFO system.
Yes, it has the highest absolute return of any established large value fund.
Great shop.
Great strategy.
Shareholder friendly.
Enduring.
High integrity.
But, its strategy is simply too volatile, which can produce terrible drawdowns.
I do own it, but maintain a short timing leash.
Today, I would recommend it to others with high qualification...20 year minimum and you're never allowed to look at the monthly statement =).
See my recent post to mrc79's portfolio question...about half way down: Retirement Portpolio - pls. provide your critique.
Charles

I myself don't see how FPACX is such a bleedin' winner compared with GLRBX, JABAX, ICMBX, and ARLSX, but maybe that's just me and the stick I have about Romick holding so much cash and overcharging for it and not clearly outperforming.
Anyway, re
>> Does historical performance in past bull and bear markets have any practical forecasting merit?
I have been trying to follow the outcome of the recently announced SP500 persistence backtest methodology but have not found the bottom line (maybe I have to pay) --- so what managers do consistently superior work??
Since I buy managers, so to speak, I did do my own crude quickcheck of my ancient faves, both held and ditched, and thus offer to the group this fwiw:
When I compared GABEX, YACKX, FLPSX, PRBLX with SP500 over 19, 13/14/15/16, 10, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and ytd, I found that all of them regularly beat SP500 with the following exceptions and notes: PRBLX, GABEX lagged slightly @ 4y, they plus YACKX did the same at 3y, *only* PRBLX and GABEX outperformed at 2y, but then all outperformed or tied at 1y and ytd, same as long ago but less dramatic.
So what do I conclude? Well, only that I am glad to currently hold those four funds (I traded in GABEX for PRBLX) and am glad that all do well ulcerwise.
I also checked hoary good funds (don't know about manager constancy) that I have ditched. Again fwiw:
TWEIX, JENSX, DODGX, FCNTX (various managers but almost always pretty solid), WVALX, TORYX, and SSHFX: all were much iffier compared with SP500 over the last 19 years. The last three have been stronger more recently, but not enough for me to care. I want to see near, long and longer strength.
So there you have an informal and unrigorous look trying to dupe the SP persistence data.
I also believe in paying for downside protection, and the four I now hold as I enter retirement all offer that, to an extent, compared with indexes even div indexes. Nobody talks much about that. I will pay for that bigtime. Gabelli is always hammered for being expensive, e.g., but check his downside stats.
Thoughts appreciated.

Hi BWG,
In Fidelity retirement accounts, I would take a look at DLHIX ($500 minimum +TF ) and ETIHX/ETNHX ($2500 minimum + TF/$2500 minimum, NTF). Although ETIHX is young, the manager has a good track record at ETILX.
Kevin