Reply to @VintageFreak:
While the fund is closed to new investors, since you already have a position in the fund, you should be able to open a new account in a taxable account provided that you can demonstrate you own the shares by submitting a recent statement. You need to speak with CSR for more information.
Fund Eligible Purchases Closed to New Investors
The Fund is closed to new investors. Except as indicated below, only investors of the Fund on December 31, 2009, whether owning shares of record or through a processing intermediary, are eligible to purchase shares of the Fund. Exceptions include:
Participants in an employee retirement plan for which the Fund is an eligible investment alternative and whose records are maintained by a processing intermediary having an agreement with the Fund in effect on December 31, 2009.
Clients of a financial adviser or planner who had client assets invested in the Fund on December 31, 2009.
Employees, officers and directors of the Fund or the Adviser, and members of their immediate families (namely, spouses, siblings, parents, children and grandchildren).
Firms having an existing business relationship with the Adviser, whose investment the officers of the Fund determine, in their sole discretion, would not adversely affect the Adviser’s ability to manage the Fund effectively.
The Fund reserves the right, at any time, to re-open or modify the extent to which the future sales of shares are limited.

Reply to @InformalEconomist:
"This flies in the face of what a retirement account is intended for." Yes, precisely. With many types of funds, most would be better served allowing the money to sit and grow.

A useful reminder, though unfortunately it won't reach or be read by those who need it the most.
I can think of various scenarios in which accounts appear to be idle, such as job loss and no contributions for a period of time.
This flies in the face of what a retirement account is intended for.
Most of the fund companies through which I hold an account directly have sent such a notice, though have not stressed it.

Hi Guys,
If you don’t know, I have some skills and experience that contribute to my qualifications in assessing Monte Carlo-based retirement analyses. I have reviewed much of the literature, have done countless specific analyses, and have even written a Monte Carlo code when not many existed. So, this is not a casual posting; it has a serious purpose.
The NY Times article that reviewed the Pfau and Kitces study did a respectable job at summarizing the researcher’s basic findings. But, like any broad-brush evaluation aimed at a general readership, it is not necessarily nuanced or complete. A study of this magnitude deserves special attention since an interpretation of its discoveries can be very personal. Also, the authors are heavyweights in the retirement arena; these researchers speak with authority.
Therefore, my first recommendation is that you not be satisfied with a reasonable review, but that you go directly to the source. The referenced document is not mathematical, is a breezy read, has specific recommendations, contains useful charts that summarize all its findings, and is only19 pages long. Here is a Link to this fine Monte Carlo research paper:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2324930
The study itself is comprehensive, but it is simultaneously limited in scope because it only partially deals with the complex continuum of retirement issues. For example, retirement planning must address both the accumulation and the distribution phases of an overall retirement strategy. The referenced study only focuses on the distribution portion of retirement.
The study examines the survival prospects of a retirement portfolio under the commonly accepted 4 % and 5 % annual withdrawal schedules (adjusted for inflation) for three representative market rewards scenarios. Not shockingly, the postulated returns scenarios are a primary determinant force in any portfolio survival study. The three reasonable postulated scenarios are: one developed by Harold Evensky for professional financial planning purposes, another calibrated to the current low interest rate environment, and a third that reflects historical equity and bond returns.
The major distinction in the Pfau and Kitces work is that the equity/bond asset allocation mix is not held constant during the retirement period; 121 equity glide-pathways are defined and evaluated. Monte Carlo analyses randomly selects the portfolio’s returns annually for each of 10,000 cases considered for each equity glide-path. A 30-year retirement lifecycle is documented.
In some instances, the retirement portfolio is favored with positive returns in its early years; in other instances, the reverse is randomly selected and the portfolio suffers initial erosive market drawdowns. Portfolio survival is definitely dependent upon both the magnitude and the order of these future projected returns.
For a more complete assessment of the entire retirement planning process, I recommend you visit another research paper. The paper is authored by Javier Estrada, another financial research wizard; his paper is titled “Rethinking Risk”. Here is a Link to the compact 23 page study:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2318961
Estrada examined returns data from 19 countries over a 110 year timeframe. He makes the case for a heavier commitment to equity positions during the accumulation phase of retirement planning, even just before the retirement date. He observes that “ In fact, stocks have both a higher upside potential and a more limited downside potential
than bonds, even when tail risks strike.” He’s writing here about Black Swan low probability events late in the lifecycle period.
In his conclusion section, Estrada writes “ … it is clear that stocks are more volatile than bonds, but it is far from clear that they are riskier than bonds for the type of investor considered here. This is because, even when tail risks strike, stocks enable investors to accumulate more wealth by the end of the holding period than bonds. Hence, in what sense are stocks riskier than bonds for a long‐term investor that focuses on the endgame?”
In essence, the Pfau & Kitces Monte Carlo studies, and the Estrada empirical assembly and analysis of market data dovetail to fit an emerging picture. These researchers are advocating for more aggressive portfolios with a higher fraction of equity holdings. However, Pfau & Kitces endorse a U-shaped percentage equity holding profile that features more fixed income products immediately after the retirement date.
Their study is soundly constructed, but its numerical findings are not overwhelming. That’s why you need to examine the results for yourself. It is likely that some of the reported trends are within the uncertainty (the noise) of the calculations. Basically, the study documents marginal benefits, small gains in survival likelihoods.
In many instances, the reported portfolio survival probabilities are at totally unacceptable survival rates. That is especially true for the Evensky model returns and today’s low fixed income returns forecasts. From my viewpoint, the only actionable portfolio equity glide-path scenario is that coupled to the historical market returns. That’s a rude awakening.
Referring to the Pfau & Kitces figures, their analyses show portfolio survival rates above the 90 % likelihood mark only for historical-like annual return rates. That might also be interpreted as a clue that a 4 % withdrawal rate is unacceptable if current, muted market conditions hold for the next decade or so.
There is a lot to be learned from the two referenced studies. Please take advantage of them. I believe that although they offer interesting and new insights, they do not make overwhelmingly compelling arguments. If I do decide to act on them, it will be very incremental in character.
Nobody sees the future market returns with clarity, so conservative retirement approaches and planning are always the order of the day.
I hope these references are helpful in that regard.
Best Wishes.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/912036/000119312513367597/d598072d497.htm
497 1 d598072d497.htm ASTON FUNDS
Aston Funds
ASTON/Fairpointe Mid Cap Fund
Class N Shares and Class I Shares
Supplement dated September 16, 2013 to the Prospectus dated February 28, 2013 and supplemented on July 2, 2013 for Aston Funds (the “Prospectus”) and Summary Prospectus dated March 1, 2013 for the Fund (the “Summary Prospectus” and together with the Prospectus, the “Prospectuses”)
IMPORTANT NOTICE
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectuses and should be retained and read in conjunction with the Prospectuses. Keep it for future reference.
Effective after the close of business on Friday, October 18, 2013 (the “Soft Close Date”), the ASTON/Fairpointe Mid Cap Fund (the “Fund”) is closed to new investors until further notice, with the following limited exceptions, where the Fund determines that the exception processing is operationally feasible and will not harm the Fund’s investment process:
• Financial advisors and/or financial consultants that have clients invested in the Fund may continue to recommend the Fund to their clients and/or open new accounts or add to the accounts of their clients.
• Financial advisors and/or financial consultants that have approved the inclusion of the Fund as an investment option for their clients and such inclusion was approved by the Fund prior to the Soft Close Date may designate the Fund as an investment option for their clients.
• Participants in a retirement plan that includes the Fund as an investment option on the Soft Close Date may continue to designate the Fund as an investment option.
• Trustees of Aston Funds, employees of Aston Asset Management, LP and Fairpointe Capital LLC and their immediate household family members may open new accounts and add to such accounts.
The Fund reserves the right to make additional exceptions, to limit the above exceptions or otherwise to modify the foregoing closure policy at any time and to reject any investment for any reason.
For more information, please call Aston Funds: 800-992-8151 or visit our website at www.astonfunds.com.

Counterintuitive, yes. Logical, entirely.
I really need to see if anyone convincingly rebuts this. If you are underfunded for retirement and have to take risks, this isn't your aproach; but, for adequately funded individuals, it makes sense. It didn't address the duration of the bond funds, so far as I could tell.
I'll keep more cash than I had planned, or use ultra-short bond funds, but it convinced me to be very careful with equity investments, since I'm within 5 years of retirement (and I hope I'd have been careful anyway). This is a bit difficult for me with the new funds suggested each month.
It does clash with the advice of others, including Bogle, who suggest a higher equity percentage, using Social Security as the bond component of one's investments. I'd have been happier if they'd overtly incorporated Social Security in their calculations. Since I don't have time to do the Monte Carlo calculations, I hope they are correct.

Yikes - Need to read this thing at least twice to understand where they're going. This "new theory" turns traditional retirement investing (as practiced by target date funds) on its head. In other words, the proponents would increase stock allocations as one ages. I guess the following sums up the "logic" here:
"... if the market performs poorly later, say in the second half of retirement, the damage to the portfolio is far less severe because the money had several decent years first. In other words, the sequence of your returns matters, especially in retirement. “If you have a bad sequence of returns early in retirement, you would have a lower stock allocation when you are most vulnerable to losses."
Not perhaps as qualified to comment on this as some others better versed in statistics. But, I'd observe (wryly) that the market did in fact tumble - off 50+% - just as the first wave of boomers reached retirement age. Ironic - huh? Still, It's not entirely clear that this new approach would have solved much. If followed, these people would have had less in equities at the time of the crash. That's true. But, they'd now be increasing their allocation to equities during a period of record high stock valuations.
I suspect the authors' computations are skewed favorably in their direction by the bizarre "once in a century" bond market we just experienced. Of course, retires would have made out like bandits had they been mostly in longer bonds in 2007. They could have then ridden the bond bull right up until 2013, sidestepping some of the early carnage in stocks. But, it's dangerous to tailor a plan based on recent market performance. Markets always have a way of confounding even the best laid plans. The plan under review seems peculiarly fashioned to fight the last war, as we humans are so often prone to do. Yes, history does repeat. Unfortunately, it does so only in very random order and in no great haste. So. if you already have a long range plan, don't throw it out the window in favor of this new theory. If you don't currently have a plan, look elsewhere for guidance.
No - This isn't an endorsement of target date funds, which have their own problems. There's creative ground in between to exploit without acquiescing to either of these extremes. Yet - if push came to shove, I'd say the target date people have it "more right" than do the proponents of this new theory. As always, MHO

Reply to @Desota: I'm not disrespecting anyone. I'm simply saying making claims you don't have to suffer consequences off shouldn't be made. If I knew Birinyi had substantial assets, say 60% of his net worth in S&P 500, I would put him on a pedestal. Idle predictions should not be made.
I also need to point out that calling bottom when market has lost 50% of its value is not genius. It is calculated risk for making predictions coming through. If he had made call in 2009 in 5 years S&P would hit 2000, then THAT would be something. OBummer and the fed is going to pull out all stops to make sure market keeps rising into 2015. Making this prediction now is another calculated risk.
Finally, when market goes to 2100, please give me credit. 66% of my retirement account is in equities. I'm making the call putting my money where my mouth is.

Reply to @BobC: I agree with BobC.
I think you should work backwards. Determine cash flow needs in retirement, subtract the cash flow due SS and look at your portfolio to see if you can meet the cash flow needs with it and what risk level you might have to assume for it and see portfolio survival rate thru Monte Carlo simulation is acceptable. If the situation is not looking good one might have to delay retirement, take part time Job in Retirement or reduce costs and maybe if those are not possible downgrade expected life style.

Reply to @Old_Joe: Now I'm getting it (duh:-) Thanks for all the time. I think some good has been accomplished. Come to think, although 100% of our investments are earmarked for "retirement" at our ages, I do view somewhat differently (1) the traditional IRA, (2) the Roth and (3) the non-sheltered portions. (In reality, however, the three normally run pretty close together.)
Agree with you - to advise mom & pop investors currently in retirement to throw all their cash into risky assets and count SS as their "bond" or "fixed income" portion is bunk. It's also not characteristic Bogle. As someone else infers, first time the markets experience a sharp drop they'll dump & run ... and at the worst possible time.
Bogle's fine - but not a Saint. Not sure what his "gig" is nowadays. ... Google him and he's everywhere. Is he garnering income from his appearances? Book sales? Who knows? If Ted or anyone else comes across that M* Interview in its whole & "linkable" entirety, maybe we'll get a look at just what he really said.
Regards

Reply to @hank: Your thought re the differentiation between "investment" and retirement" portfolios centered around Investor's observation that he didn't believe that our portfolio was adequately configured to assure inflation protection, because of the ultra-high (at the moment) cash component. And he was right.
In discussing that however, I pointed out that as things look now we do not anticipate needing to draw down that portfolio for living expenses. Investor responded that in that case it really shouldn't be considered as a "retirement" portfolio, but rather as an "investment" portfolio (held while we are retired, it's true), and that indeed a different calculus might apply: If there is no strong need to bolster return for living expense, perhaps a lower risk/return is OK.
Over the years I've become aware that seemingly no two people on Fund Alarm or MFO seem to calculate their "portfolio" in exactly the same manner. And that's quite understandable, as probably no two of us are looking at exactly identical situations, and after all this is an informal forum- not held to commonly accepted accounting standards, thank goodness.
And you're quite right re the cash or cash equivalent allocations causing a great deal of head scratching. If you keep a bundle aside for living expenses in case of disaster or extraordinary expense, is that part of your portfolio or not? Is RPHYX a cash or bond allocation?
This is why comparisons of "portfolios" in this informal MFO environment really isn't possible. And that's not really a big deal either. My original growl re the word "portfolio" as used in this thread was simply because it was being used as if it were a commonly accepted definition here, and I just don't see that it is.
From your link above: "Bogle has a great point: use your Social Security income for the fixed-income portion of your portfolio, and allocate the rest to stocks (and precious metals, obviously)." What total bunk! A pension isn't "fixed income"? Nor rental property? Nor annuity income? Nor trust income? And do any of those deserve to be considered a part of a "portfolio"? I don't think so, and neither does the Investopedia definition.
All of these conveniently unmentioned factors are exactly why I prefer to look at the whole thing as in "keep it simple", above.
Take care- OJ

Reply to @Old_Joe: It's healthy to grumble! I took yours more as dismay at the lack of focus In the whole thread - and I'd heartily agree with that assessment. Wasn't aware of the differentiation you and Investor make between investment portfolio and retirement portfolio. I'm afraid I tend to view all as "one and the same". "Different strokes ......" as they say. Whatever works.
I am, however, sometimes frustrated by the term "cash" which gets thrown around quite a bit. Most of us, I suspect, have "enhanced" our definition quite a bit by dipping into riskier assets with cash-like characteristics. So one guy's reported "40% cash" position may look quite a bit different from someone else's 40% cash stake. "Bond" too is a term open to different interpretations. Some think only in terms of AA or higher quality. Others include junk and EM as part of their bond position. That's one hell of a difference in risk-reward characteristics and also how they'll behave under different conditions.
I've spent an hour trying to uncover a M* interview Bogle did recently. All leads failed - perhaps because I'm not a registered M* user. But, apparently, he left the impression Social Security should suffice as most people's "bond" holdings - so we should now plow most everything we hold that's liquid into the stock market. I do fear the ol boy's beginning to lose it! Those 1% bond yields may have driven him over the edge. The Boggleheads are going nuts on their board over his comments.
Here's the best short snippit I could dig up on his recent remark. Not the transcript (which I'd really like to read) http://www.wcvarones.com/2013/06/john-bogle-social-security-is-new-fixed.html

Hey there hank: actually, wasn't growling at you but rather at how the conversations here generally tend to conflate "portfolio" with "retirement portfolio" and with (as rono points out below) "wealth portfolio".
I'm as guilty as anyone, and Investor and I have sorta agreed that in my particular case it should be regarded as an "investment portfolio" rather than a "retirement portfolio", because our actual retirement income seems to be doing fine without touching the investment side of things. I would guess that "investment portfolio" and "wealth portfolio" are synonymous, but because we don't have a standard usage here on MFO I'm not even sure of that.
How Bogle transmogrifies SS into a bond-like instrument I'm not sure, unless he is strictly looking only at hopefully dependable scheduled income, and substituting SS for equivalent bond income without regard to the actual bond value. In that case, the same rational would seem to apply to an annuity also.
The whole thing seems a bit shaky to me, since bond income may or may not keep pace with inflation, and then are we talking about holding bonds directly or through a fund, where anything can affect the intrinsic value of the holding. Pretty messy, I think, and too much room for slop to be very helpful.
Keep it simple:
1) calculate needed retirement income, adjusted for inflation
2) calculate all anticipated income, from all sources other than investments
3) subtract anticipated income (2) from needed income (1)
4) if the income meets the needed level, you can contemplate an "investment" or "wealth" portfolio.
5) if there's a shortfall, then you need to seriously work on your "retirement" portfolio. You now know the income needed from that portfolio, and can determine your equity/bond/fund distribution in an intelligent way to try and meet (and hopefully surpass) that need.
I'd close with "peace" also, per rono, but it seems to be hard to come by these days.
Regards, as always- OJ

Reply to @Old Joe : Yes - definition of terms is "Debate 101" and generally the first step in problem solving. Hmmm ... I took Joe's question to be a reference to something I recently heard John Bogle speak about. Bogle takes your annual Social Security benefits (with some yearly "COLA" figured in) and multiplies that by your life expectancy. OK - Let's say your SS will average about $20,000 a year and your life-expectancy is 20 years. Bogle than computes that into a $400,000 bond you're sitting on (20X$20,000). Now, if you're 66 years old and follow his other age-based rule (by holding 66% bonds or other fixed income at that age) than your equity investments should amount to 34% - or about $200,000. I suspect that for some here that $200,000 might well represent the better part of their accumulated retirement savings, and so would therefore question the wisdom of following Bogle's advice to the letter. But, depends on the individual.
Guess I should have been more explicit in my reply. As far as the poster goes, I offered some general observations based on having followed John Bogle a good many years. His writings were among the first I read and enjoyed on the topic of investing. Frankly, am loath to advise anyone on anything financial, believing - as I'm sure you do - the best long-range investment plans derive from within and are tailored specifically to address the circumstances and needs of the individual. Thanks for your thoughts as always :-)

Here we go again: let's not define any terms, it makes it more interesting that way. If there is a standard generally accepted definition of "portfolio", does it or does it not include assets other than financial market products?
If a standard, generally accepted definition says yes or no, then the question answers itself. If there is no standard definition, then anybody can include whatever they darned well want to, and the term "portfolio" means whatever you want it to, so essentially becomes meaningless.
FWIW, Investopedia gives the following definition:
"A grouping of financial assets such as stocks, bonds and cash equivalents, as well as their mutual, exchange-traded and closed-fund counterparts. Portfolios are held directly by investors and/or managed by financial professionals. "
If the question, as I suspect, is really "should SS be considered an asset for retirement planning purposes", I did, and believe that that is a valid approach. If you were to take a sum of cash and convert that to an annuity (which I certainly DO NOT recommend for the average investor), then that also should be included as a retirement asset for planning purposes. Likewise, a defined benefit retirement pension, if anyone still has one of those, and has confidence in the plan. Likewise income property, etc. Why would you not include any potential retirement income in your overall planning?

I say no unless you are close to retirement. For everyone else there is Master Card.
No....what I mean is, count on SS like you count on a bonus. Sure you rely on getting it while you are dreaming of buying a new car. When it always does not come through, you rant a little, and then get over it. You live.

Social Security as part of your portfolio
BY ANDREA COOMBES,
MARKETWATCH
COPYRIGHT © 2013 DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
MARKETWATCH — 08/19/13
Counting benefits as fixed income: opportunities and risk.
You may be counting on Social Security but if you’re not counting Social Security as a part of your overall asset allocation, you may be missing out on bigger gains in your retirement-savings portfolio.
Some financial advisers say retirement investors should consider the value of their Social Security benefits as a piece of their fixed-income investments.
Generally, adopting that strategy would mean shifting a big portion of your investible assets out of bonds and into stocks.
For example, if you’ve got $300,000 worth of Social Security benefits and a $700,000 investment portfolio, then your total portfolio is worth $1 million. If you wanted 50% of that portfolio, or $500,000, allocated to fixed-income investments, then just $200,000 of your investment portfolio would be in bonds, while $500,000 would be in equities.
There are different ways to gauge the present value of future benefits; one simple tactic is to add up your monthly benefit (you’ll have to guess how long you’ll be alive to collect benefits).
“We go through a process where we value someone’s Social Security like a TIP,” or Treasury Inflation Protected security, said Bill Meyer, chief executive of Social Security Solutions, which offers fee-based claiming tools and services. “Then we add it into the household’s allocation.”
In one scenario involving a hypothetical single person who claimed benefits at age 70, owned an investment portfolio worth $500,000, and employed a tax-efficient withdrawal strategy, Meyer said he found that this strategy led to 8 extra years of retirement income, compared with not counting Social Security in the person’s investment allocation.
Famed investor Jack Bogle, founder of the Vanguard Group, seems to agree. In an interview in June with investment researcher Morningstar, Bogle suggested retirement savers should consider the value of their Social Security benefits in their asset allocation.
First Bogle cited his penchant for basing one’s asset allocation on one’s age. (If you’re 40 years old, you have 40% of your investments in fixed income and 60% in equities. By the time you’re 60, you’ve got 60% in fixed income, 40% in equities).
Then he talked about Social Security, citing a saver who has $300,000 saved in an investment portfolio.
“If you capitalize that stream of future payments, most people’s Social Security is going to be…let’s say $300,000 for an average investor,” Bogle said. “If you have $300,000 all in equity funds, even equity-index funds, and $300,000 in Social Security, you are already at 50/50” fixed income versus equities, he said.
Meyer, of Social Security Solutions, acknowledged that many people “will be uncomfortable with taking on a larger stock position,” he said.
In his practice, after coming up with a value for a client’s Social Security benefits, the next step is a conversation with the client.
“That’s where Social Security meets risk management,” he said. “What does this really mean to have more stocks? How are you going to feel when the market goes up and down? A lot of people will say, ‘I understand this concept but I really don’t feel good when my 401(k) goes down $50,000,’” Meyer said.
People need to understand that “with the additional stock exposure there will be more volatility,” Meyer said. “With our clients, we’ll give them a target asset allocation and then we’ll give them a range.”
He tells clients: “Given your amount of Social Security, you could tilt your equity exposure as much as X.”
Then, Meyer said, “We show them the additional money they can get by having more stock. But then we run a Monte Carlo simulation to show them the volatility. What’s the most you could win, but what’s the most you could lose.”
Also, he warned, married couples—who can employ a variety of Social Security claiming strategies—might have a harder time estimating the value of their future benefits.
Income, not assets
Some disagree with this approach. “I advocate including [the value of Social Security benefits] in a net-worth statement, but I don’t necessarily go so far as to include it in a traditional investment allocation,” said Bob Klein, a certified financial planner and president of Retirement Income Center in Newport Beach, Calif. who also is a MarketWatch RetireMentor contributor.
“It’s a psychological issue, more than anything,” Klein said. “Say we’re in a real down market—they’re not going to be comforted necessarily by the fact that they have Social Security. They’re focusing on the fact that their portfolio is going down.”
Klein said he prefers to calculate the present value of projected retirement income from a client’s various retirement-income sources, such as an investment portfolio, Social Security and annuities.
“You’re not looking at assets per se. You’re looking at income and how the income is allocated,” he said.
One reason he likes that approach: It forces a focus on generating retirement income.
“The reality is you need income to live on and, furthermore, with life expectancies increasing, you’re going to be retired, chances are, for a lot longer than your parents were,” Klein said. “Income is the name of the game at that point.”
He added: “It’s important to recognize that Social Security does have value to it and include that present value, whatever it is, in a financial statement, but don’t include it in a traditional investment allocation format.”
How do you go about figuring the present value of your benefits? Looking at your statement on SSA.gov can help, but you will have to make a guess as to how long you will live. And if you’re many years away from retirement, you’ll have to make some guesses as to how much you’re likely to earn later in your career.
“You have to use a lot of assumptions,” Klein said. “The closer you are to full retirement age, the easier it is to do the calculation. However, you still have to make assumptions about longevity, which is tricky.”
Others agreed with Klein’s approach.
Counting Social Security as part of your investment allocation, and thus tilting your investments more heavily toward equities, puts your portfolio at too much risk, according to an article written in 2009 by Paul Merriman, president of the Merriman Financial Education Foundation, a longtime financial adviser and a MarketWatch RetireMentor.
Merriman said he still agrees now with what he wrote then.
“In a serious bear market, that heavy equity allocation could wipe out your portfolio’s ability to keep generating the income you need for retirement,” he wrote in the article.
“You’d still have your Social Security, but you might not have much else. You could be forced to drastically cut back your lifestyle—an unfortunate result that started when you didn’t think clearly about this,” he said.

Correct, of course.
Dodge and Cox did it to me, as did Tilson Focus (gee, "former hedge fund manager" and Kiplinger columnist [I think] - should be prudent, right?). Oakmark Select was already gone with WaMu.
Of course, I'm still pursuing the leprechaun manager who will give me that pot of something, but I suspect indexing with a small to mid cap and value twist shaded towards GMO's recommendations (about which they seem a bit unconfident) with a significant non-US component (where I might be more active management reliant) will be my post retirement strategy. I only hope that I can stop myself from early dementia disasters.

Reply to @Hrux:
Hi Heather,
Upon further reflection of your decision to favor passive Index funds for your company’s retirement program, I recalled some recent other institutional agency conversions to the passive investing discipline.
I certainly concur with your wise judgment to adopt that format, and for holding fast to any investment philosophy through an extensive fair period test. I believe we all are a little impatient and tend to abandon the ship prematurely. Simplicity and commitment work best.
Your decision to offer Index-like products is consistent with the direction being taken by many institutional agencies. There is a clear message here given that these influential institutions can trade more cheaply and more quickly than the private investor.
Also these entities have the muscle power to hire the best of the best money managers and have committees to screen for these superior managers. Yet they are taking the alternate pathway. This movement has been gaining momentum for at least a decade. The ICI 2013 Fact Book has extensive longitudinal tables that illustrate this trend for various categories of institutional investors.
Earlier this year, intrepid MFOer Ted posted a reference to an article that reported a California state pension plan (CalPERS) option to shift more of its gigantic savings into the passive Index camp. This could be a watershed event.
Apparently, before the proposed realignment, CalPERS already had an impressive fraction of its enormous holdings in passive products. That institution was unhappy with the lackluster performance of the other fraction which was assigned to numerous active fund managers, including a Hedge fund component. There is a disconnect between the extra costs and the end results which has prompted this agency to reexamine its investment advisor policies.
The evidence suggests that only about one-quarter of the active managers in the CalPERS program outperformed their benchmarks. Their excess returns did not compensate for the poor results achieved by the remaining three-quarters of active management. The CalPERS decision-makers are now asking the key question: Why bother?
Most likely, CalPERS final decision will influence other, smaller pension agencies. Their decision on this matter is expected momentarily. I am unaware of the outcome.
Best Wishes.