Thanks Scott.
I see no reason to be an early buyer of this fund, and prefer to place the fund on my watch list. QLEIX/QLENX have net expense ratios of 1.30% and 1.55%, respectively, as detailed HERE. According to a test trade I just made in my Fidelity retirement account, these funds have no minimum investment but have a TF. Actual trading results may differ.
Kevin

Another good topic.
Dr. Sharpe talked about this in his book Investors and Markets. His research pointed out that one could hold a 60/40 allocation of stocks/bonds and get higher returns with very little additional risk versus the traditional 50/50 balanced portfolio. There are funds like the American Century One Choice portfolios that do not adjust as you near retirement. They attempt to maintain the same allocation ratio. If I am not mistaken, he pushed the allocation to 65/35 before the risk profile became too much.
As already mentioned, this is just one concept that may or may not fit an individual investors needs or risk profile.

Hi Guys,
Thank you for your contributions to this topic.
Yes, the conventional financial wisdom is that as retirement approaches, a portfolio’s asset allocation must drift towards a stronger fixed income weighting. The mixed asset date-targeted mutual funds illustrate this standard policy.
Yes, some professional managers and financial advisors are now recommending a divergent strategy. This is an adjustment that acknowledges that current fixed income products do not yield returns that keep pace with inflation, at least for the short to intermediate term.
So the practical answer is that it depends upon market circumstances and individual needs. In the investment world, one size definitely does not fit everybody.
Very often, if you visit a financial consultant, he will either formally (by testing) or informally (by personal interactions) judge your risk aversion. He will outline a portfolio asset allocation based on that risk avoidance assessment.
I believe this downside-up approach is wrongheaded. By nature, education, and experience, I am very pragmatic; you establish a goal and go about satisfying that goal. I mostly buy into the upside-down approach. You first and foremost identify your target return requirements and assemble a portfolio to hopefully produce your anticipated and required returns. That portfolio ultimately accepts whatever risk is tied to that needed portfolio return.
Of course, every effort is made to reduce that risk without compromising the expected rewards too much. That’s the essence of designing a well diversified, efficient frontier portfolio. Using broad ranging classes of assets, experience has proven that risk can be cut in half without seriously degrading expected returns.
Given today’s paltry fixed income returns, it is not surprising that financial advisors currently emphasize an overweighed equity position. Over time, that situation will surely change as the strong reversion-to-the-mean market pull takes command.
Again being pragmatic, those folks who have rather modest portfolios as retirement nears must demand higher returns from that portfolio, and consequently, like it or not, must design a higher risk portfolio or delay retirement.
None of this is rocket science; it is simply commonsense. Indeed, one size does not fit all investors, and that size morphs over time because of personal changes and market dynamics. A single, invariant answer does not exist.
Thanks for your tolerance of my ravings. Thank you all for your many excellent postings that greatly expand the scope and the usefulness of my original submittal. The composite posts amply demonstrate MFO’s worth to individual investors (and maybe even to professionals).
Best Wishes.

There is a very good summary and links to various Retirement Calculators at:
http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Retirement_calculators_and_spending
For those that want to explore various various Spending Models in Retirement, FireCalc 3.0 (as MJG pointed) and Flexible Retirement Calculator looks good. Fidelity Retirement Income Planner is also pretty good.
~~~
I personally have access to Financial Engines Monte Carlo Simulator through my 401k plan. This simulator is freely available through many 401k plans (it may be called several names) to 401k participants. There are some differences between free vs full and free vs free depending on which 401k plan/site you are accessing through. Vanguard also offers it to investors if they have $50K or more assets:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/retirement/financial-engines
If you buy the following book from the CIO of Financial Engines, the book comes with a code for 1 year trial use of Financial Engines. The book itself is useful too to introduce Portfolio Management/Design using Monte Carlo simulation techniques.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Intelligent-Portfolio-Practical-Investing/dp/0470228040
Also, as I mentioned above Fidelity has its own Monte Carlo Simulator called Retirement Income Planner. If you have an account at Fidelity, it is a useful tool to use:
https://www.fidelity.com/calculators-tools/retirement-income-planner
Fidelity has another MC tool for those that are in the accumulation phase. I believe these two are driven from the same MC engine.
https://www.fidelity.com/calculators-tools/retirement-quick-check

Good website but it does raise a point I have long pondered, namely, should a portfolio's stock exposure be reduced with changes in age/retirement status? A number of the "target date" retirement funds do this, gradually reducing stock exposure with age. On the other hand, if one assumes that "stocks for the long run" provide the highest return, then wouldn't one always want the highest return regardless of age? (I realize the counter argument is that as one ages, there is less and less time for a portfolio to recover from a big drawdown, for example what we had in 1998.) As an example of this thinking, I recently had a session with an Ernst and Young financial planner who said the E&Y recommendation was not to change allocation with age (allocation being set by goals, personal risk tolerance, etc., with age not being a factor.)
The reason this comes up from the FIRECALC website is that for the scenario I set up the success probablility peaked when I had about 87% invested in stocks. I would think one would be feeling more than a little "exposed" with 87% in stocks in a retirement portfolio at, say, 75-80 years old, but I guess if one wanted the highest possible success ratio chance and one could live with a 1998 style collapse, then maybe that is what one would do.
Joe

Hi Guys,
A few days ago I posted on the topic of a safe retirement withdrawal rate. I made a few innocuous observations. I ended my submittal with a Link to an easy to use Monte Carlo simulator that is helpful for estimating portfolio survival likelihoods. For completeness, I repeat that linkage here:
http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/volatility/montecarlo.htm
The referenced MoneyChimp calculator does a very commendable job. However, one of its few shortcomings is a lack of flexibility for retirement planning purposes.
I was not entirely happy with my recommendation which was made in real-time while composing my post. Upon reflection, more flexible and more sophisticated sites are readily accessible for retirement planning that permit options with regard to drawdown schedules and returns variability.
One such site, that I trusted when planning my retirement two decades ago, is from FIREcalc. Note that ex-WSJ writer Jonathan Clements endorsed it. Here is the Link to that resource:
http://www.firecalc.com/
The FIREcalc site offers many options not available on MoneyChimp. The user gets to choose how many of these options he will explore and incorporate into his retirement assessment.
The user Menu Bar near the top of the introduction page defines the various options. I recommend that you review each and every one, then select those that you wish to utilize.
For example, you might want to make a lump sum withdrawal at a specified time during the retirement cycle. That perturbation can be accommodated in the “Portfolio Changes” section of the website.
I particularly like the numerous ways that FIREcalc allows the user to project future market returns. The options are contained and accessed in the “Your Portfolio” section. You get to choose the market data period start date to estimate returns. You get to choose from among a random Monte Carlo based option and other options that use historical market return sequences with various starting dates.
After you have considered all the input options, simply hit the submit button available on any screen, and the calculation is launched.
Computational results are quickly completed and displayed in a graphic format. The accompanying text summaries the probability of portfolio success. What-if alternate scenarios are conveniently evaluated.
I recommend you consider visiting this fine retirement calculator. The FIREcalc formulation provides a better retirement planning tool. Add it to your financial toolkit. Enjoy.
Best Regards.

Reply to @Mark: Makes one wonder doesn't it. We all need to do good job of evaluating numbers. Most celebrities seem to have made their reputation in the extended bull market. El Erian is revered for his handling of Harvard's Endowment Fund I think. Anyone knows during which years?
Wonder we simply have a Bill Miller with an accent here. I never bought into the Miller hype, but I have a very small percentage of my retirement assets in PGMDX. Nothing that'll break the bank, but that's besides the point. Need to re-evaluate.

Howdy Investor,
You noted: "I think you are beginning with a wrong assumption. If you invest in Roth instead of IRA, you are likely to have contributed less since you had to pay taxes on that amount so you had less money to invest (assuming that all your other spending/saving remains the same)."
The amount of complexity and/or what an individual may hold in various retirement accounts and where the money lands after retirement can have many paths.
Example: Mid-1970's, company "A" has a defined benefit pension plan. Any individual investing at this time was likely in taxable, personal accts.
---late 1970's, finds that an individual may now invest in an "IRA". $1,500 maximum and deductible against one's gross income (if not covered by a company pension plan). In 1981, this provision was removed and opened IRA's to most folks.
--- mid-1980's, now finds something named a 401K being offered by some companies.
1990 example of possible choices for an individual:
--- trad. IRA, $2,000 maximum input and perhaps deductible against one's income, dependent upon gross income upper limits.
--- 401k/957,403b's, etc. The amount invested may be used to reduce one's taxable income.
1997 now finds that addition of the Roth IRA.
At this house (beginning 1981), it was invest the max. per year into the trad. IRA. 401k's were not yet available. Beginning 1990 finds 401k's available to our house investments.
At some point in time around 1992, no more was added to the trad. IRA; with all monies going into the 401k's for the maximum allowed. The 401k's and then the addition of Roth IRA's allowed us maximum input amounts into both areas.
Well, anyway; the summary could be that at an age 65 retirement (at least for boomer group folks) may find not much money in a trad. IRA, more in a Roth IRA and a larger amount in a 401k, etc.
Now, if the retiree rolls the 401k plan; the amount that is now in traditional IRA accts. could be a very large amount of money versus the limited amount that was available to place into the Roth IRA.
Sadly, I know too many folks who didn't do much or any of the above choices. Time (compounding) would have been their dear money friend.
I am not trying to make any particular point with this. Only that some folks will have various money values in different acct. types, depending upon where they placed monies during their working years. We always maximized the limits for our trad. IRA's, 401k's and Roth's.
The real serious challenges will be for those who now only have a 401k and related; and/or the Roth path to save/invest, as their pension plans.
Take care,
Catch

I just test traded for the institutional classes of the Eventide funds, ETIHX and ETILX, at Scottrade, Firstrade, TDAmeritrade, Wellstrade and Fidelity, and the only access below the prospectus minimums appears to be at Fidelity, where the minimum for ETIHX in retirement accounts appears to be $2500 with a TF.
Kevin

Fiddled with simulators previously.
However, if my math with calculators is correct; one finds that at least for traditional IRA accts. and MRD/RMD (minimum required distributions, per IRS), the following applies for a variety of inputs I placed into MRD calculators:
Using various dollar values for an IRA, different age ranges and several different rates of return for a portfolio, ,the first year mandatory drawdown from an IRA account starts at 3.6% of the total value, and the percentage increases about .1% each year going forward.
The IRS has already established a drawdown for many millions of baby boomers going forward.
'Course this example only reflects towards IRA monies, with no other consideration given to any other cash flows into a household during retirement.
Regards,
Catch

Hi Guys,
A major uncertainty when making a retirement decision is the expected future market returns. A standard analytical tool that is frequently exercised when attacking this quagmire is Monte Carlo calculations.
When using a Monte Carlo approach, a constant issue is what to input as a likely returns profile as a function of the asset allocation and time. Many simulations deploy the historical statistical market segment data sets. Others use perturbed versions of these same data sets that reflect future expectations.
These inputs are the fundamental drivers that determine an allowable annual drawdown rate. Of course, the target goal is a high likelihood of portfolio survival for the specified retirement period. That target goal is typically a 90 % to 95 % portfolio survival probability.
A recent paper addresses this essential, but cloudy, input issue of candidate future market rewards. Rather than using a random draw to initiate the overall process, this refined Monte Carlo approach starts with current bond returns and the present equity P/E ratio to guide the future returns profile.
This 17 page report by Blanchett, Finke, and Pfau is titled “Asset Valuations and Safe Portfolio Withdrawal Rates”. Here is the Link to the paper:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2286146
If you are not particularly inspired to examine the paper itself, here is a Link to a detailed opinion of that work:
http://www.kitces.com/blog/archives/480-Safe-Withdrawal-Rates-In-Todays-Low-Yield-Environment-Walking-On-The-Edge-Of-A-Cliff.html
This Nerd’s Eye View of the academic study fairly examines both the strong points and the shortcomings of the research work.
In its abstract, the research paper properly identifies the motivation for the study as follows: “Portfolio returns in the first decade of retirement have an outsize impact on retirement income strategies. Traditional Monte Carlo simulation approaches generally do not incorporate market valuations into their analysis.”
The referenced report employs a regression curve fitting approach to current bond yields as a point of departure for the fixed income modeling, and Robert Shiller’s cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings (CAPE) ratio model as an estimate of future equity market rewards. Inflation is incorporated into the formulation and is closely tied to the mid-term bond yield. As is usually the case, the overarching modeling is not completely accepted by market wizards without some controversy.
Historically, most earlier Monte Carlo studies endorsed a roughly 4 % annual drawdown rate to sort of guarantee a high portfolio survival likelihood. The referenced work challenges this assertion given today’s investment environment. That’s not unexpected since the input anticipated return schedules are muted relative to historical averages. The referenced study challenges the safety of the 4 % withdrawal chimera.
My takeaway from all these eloquent simulations is that any investor preparing for a retirement should assemble a sufficiently robust portfolio such that its planned drawdown rate should be approximately 3 % less than the projected annual returns for the portfolio. For example, if your portfolio is designed to generate a 6.5 % annual return over the long haul, than a 3 % withdrawal schedule, adjusted for inflation, should deliver a comfortable 90 % to 95 % probability of success.
Also, an alert retiree will adjust that drawdown schedule if the portfolio suffers some shortfalls. Monitoring and flexibility are always vital elements in any planning and execution exercise.
All this need not be complex rocket science. As Albert Einstein said: “ Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of difficulty, lies opportunity.”
Monte Carlo tools provide such an opportunity. I really like Monte Carlo simulations, but I also recognize their limitations. They serve best in providing guidelines. Here is a Link to a very simple and useful Monte Carlo tool that is easily used:
http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/volatility/montecarlo.htm
The code provides an estimate of portfolio survival probability. The ease of input and speed of execution allows the user to do many probing parametric cases quickly. Enjoy.
Monte Carlo analysis is applied only when definitive, precise assessments can not be made. That’s exactly a characteristic of the marketplace. That’s particularly true when planning for retirement, and forced to project highly uncertain market returns. I do recommend you use available Monte Carlo analysis when doing your retirement planning. Many websites offer that service.
Good luck to all you folks who are now evaluating the retirement option. Given the results of the referenced study, that luck is most productive to your survival prospects when gifted early in the retirement years.
Best Regards.

Howdy Matt,
Disclosure: I'm only 1/2 of a large cup of coffee into this morning; and normally would not write in the morning until 2 full cups have been consumed. But, I did a "walk about" outside of our house on this lovely Michigan morning and did not trip, fall or stumble. So, I will presume I have some normal mental and physical capacity to start this day. :)
You note FCPVX as a holding. I will presume you are aware that this fund is closed to new investors, with the exception(s) of additional monies added, as set forth via special considerations established by Fido. This fund's performance has done well, YTD.
I have not "dug" into the holdings of the funds you have listed; and only offer my viewpoint from the standpoint of "off of the top of my head" thoughts.
None of your funds, are dogs; as the sector has performed well so far this year. We all have our expections for any given sector and especially when attempting to define the value of active management of a fund. Depending upon actions of this sector for the remainer of the year; one might find the 3 funds performance to be even at the end of the year. There is no way of knowing what the managers will buy/sell going forward and which holdings will be the better winners or larger losers when December 31 arrives.
Our house holds VSCPX by virtue of an offering within a retirement acct. plan. While this fund is not at the top of the list in its category, we are not disappointed with the performance. Even to the aspect of its ER of .06%, the fund has an added 1% value when compared to the ER rates for many small cap, active managed funds.
Aside from continuing to hold FCPVX, perhaps your other small cap holding may just as well be served with an etf or index holding. As to growth, value or blend; our house holds these namings to be most fluid in many cases; as what may have been a value previous, is now more growth. M* lists FCPVX as a value fund; Fido states that it is a growth fund. One may suspect that it is both on any given day.
The below link is for M*'s "value" list. Click upon the headers (i.e., YTD) to sort the list. Also note at the YTD, the top number in the list; which is the average of the funds in the list to obtain a comparison to your funds.
Small cap value list
Lastly, your tax considerations with buys and sells may affect your actions. Fortunately, our house does not have this extra burden to consider; as our monies are in tax deferred accounts. 'Course, there are periods when our house has consideration towards the cheap and easy; as in, just buy VTI or its equivalent. VTI is U.S. concentrated, which is happy for today; has about 3,400 holdings mixed to the tune of 70% mega/large cap and the other 30% to the mid, small and micro equity area. The ER is darn near free cost; the yield is decent and the YTD is about 19.4%.
Well, anyway; enough jabber from me. Got to get back to work outside before the heat/humidity is too much; as the forecast here in Michigan is 90+ degrees for the next 7 days.
Take care of you and yours,
Catch

"i think it's not a matter of jumping full in, but scaling in reasonably"
Absolutely. Opened minimum positions in BUFBX, PRBLX, and VVPSX today, and increased position in ACMVX... will add gradually as things march on. We don't depend on the portfolio for living expenses- so inflation protection is important but not critical. We're the last fortunate generation to have defined retirement and decent SS, and we get along just fine on that income, with a bit left over. As you know, I really appreciate your insights and the help which you have cheerfully provided over the years.
Thanks again- OJ

Reply to @mrc70: I have the feeling that your post was directed towards me although you did not post in reply to my post (it was in reply to opening post by David).
At this time in my investing life (about 20 years to retirement) I would like managed funds to have downside consciousness but that should not be at the expense of giving up too much upside. I need growth and I want my manager not to shun risk completely but take some risks that are asymmetrical in his expert opinion.
ARIVX manager is extremely concerned in downside that causes it to miss long periods of up-trending market. If a fund is going to keep 50% of the invested monies in cash and still charge 1.40% on that, I can do the same much more cheaper by investing half the amount in a fund that is predominantly in the market and put the rest of the money in a place where I see fit at the time or even if I keep it cash, I am not paying an ER ratio that big on that. That is why ARIVX and I have parted ways.

Hi prinx,
On your asset allocation I have a range that I try to keep my asset allocation within. For example for equities it is forty to sixty percent. In times when I feel stocks are oversold I will govern towards the high end of this range and when stocks are overbought I will govern towards the low range. With fixed income the same theme applies as there are better times to hold bonds than others. Currently, I am moving towards the low range of my allocation to bonds. Within the remaining assets to choose from that leaves cash and alternatives. Since, I am at the top of my allocation to alternatives at about ten percent that means any reductions have to go to cash and with this I am now at about 20% cash.
My late father use to carry high cash levels as part of his allocation plan. It was not uncommon for him to be 25% cash, 25% fixed income, 25% equity and 25% real estate. My father, most of the time, had the money, in hand, without having to borrow to pursue most any reasonable special opportunity he chose to pursue within his capacties, of course. As I am approaching retirement I am starting to build my cash to pursue special opportunity much like he did. Just because I am retiring from the working world does not mean I am not going to make my money work for me though some other endeavor and occupy my time in a more leisure but productive profitable way.
Currently, I am within my asset allocation of about 20% cash, 30% income, 40% equity, and 10% alternatives. I might be raising cash and reducing fixed by about another five percent, or so, in the near term. For me, fundamentals are not in place to support current equity valuations as I feel the markets have been talked and pushed upward by leveraged and cheap money. This has, form my thougts, created a hot stock market. And, with fixed income … in a rising interest rate environment … well, most fixed income type products will suffer over the next couple of years. I don’t consider my real estate holdings as part of my investment allocation as my father did … only the assets that can be readily sold at, or less than, T+3 days settlement. I truly think there are some strong headwinds coming not only for fixed income but equities as well. Remember the sequester. I think things are going to go soft ... all around.
Not sure this has helped … but, it is currently how I see things.
Best regards,
Skeeter

long term investors, not a short term trader
age early 40s. ~25+ yrs until retirement; 401K/tsp ~85s% stocks:15s% bonds. but buying bonds in my private account YTM ~ average 7%...approximately 60s% stocks 40s% bonds in private account
you may need to define and come up w/ a plan/goals for yourself before deciding these factors

Reply to @Charles: Don't know if you are retired but a different story when you are in retirement and fixed income might be at least your age, which means I should have about 80% but no where near that. Better it should be what the first post shows, 20-30%. I never thought I would say this, but thinking of selling all fixed except about 10% and what ever my balanced or Equity income funds have. Am I stupid?

William Frels handed over lead manager responsibilities on July 1st, 18 months ahead of his retirement.
http://www.mairsandpower.com/images/Press Release FINAL.pdf

Reply to @Hrux: "Many investors who understand the power of correlations will even buy an investment with dismal return prospects, if it can offer desirable correlations to a portfolio." Agree - and that's the reason I own & continue to hold a small position in PRPFX. For someone well into his second decade of retirement - like myself - and who's very fixated on portfolio stability, I think the fund's worth including in the mix for the reasons you just outlined (approximately 7% of total invested).
However, I would NOT recommend this fund for younger plan participants who are still contributing. Under those circumstances, I'd side with the more conventional wisdom that equities will provide the best long-term growth. I thought David did a splendid job highlighting the potential risks of this fund. Said it much better than I could. Thanks for your contributions here. Look forward to reading more of them. Regards

HRUX,
I might as well throw my $.02 in too. Given that you are over 20 years from retirement, I would be less concerned on the income side and downside capture, unless you simply cannot stand to watch the gyrations. There are many good funds out there that are well run and that can give you long term returns that will make you happy. I'm sure that since you have been reading the many posts on this wonderful site, that you know which ones they are. I can only provide what I have done, which is to divide my portfolio into a combination of stocks, etfs, funds and individual bonds, just one short duration bond fund, MWLDX. I have 15 funds, 16 stocks and 12 etfs with a 38% bonds and cash, 22% funds, 22% stocks and 18% in etfs. My largest holdings are ODVYX (there are numerous classes, this is the institutional share class), PKW (without doubt my favorite etf, it beats the S+ P most years), IYW, VDIGX, McDonalds, and WAGTX. I've rarely seen any but VDIGX mentioned on the board, but these are my favs. I do work with a fee only advisor, but many of my holdings were my choices, we work together as a team. I am newly retired early 60s, but still look for growth, Im planning on being around for at least 25 more years, you cannot grow the portfolio on income funds alone. Hope this helps.