Thanks, Scott. I have PRPFX and IAU in the metals. I do like the Agriculture idea, but hadn't wanted to get into too narrow an investment category before. But I do make notes and add lots of suggested good funds to my "test" portfolio in M*, so it has been very interesting watching their performance.
This last month certainly has been a bit overwhelming for me. I have hundreds of investment and article printouts scattered all over my desk - I should use that picture as my icon here. If we do go into a double-dip, it will be my first experience at really paying attention to what's happening on a daily basis. In my good old days of "blessed ignorance" where "managing" my 401(k) meant taking a stab at what looked good without having any idea what I was doing, I barely looked at my quarterly statements during the 2000 crash and even the results surprisingly didn't seem to affect me much - probably because I was still working and bringing in a good income.... and actual retirement seemed so far off then. Still, I would much rather take the pain of understanding what's going on in the world - and how it affects my portfolios.

Reply to @scott:
Hi Scott,
Thanks for participating on this topic.
Based on your submittal, I suppose you subscribe to the axiom that if you don’t agree with the message, attack the messenger.
According to your assessment, I am a buy-and-hold geezer who is mired in the past. If you were a baseball hitter that would not be a bad batting average since you got one of the three characterizations correct.
By most accepted definitions, I qualify as a geezer. That status is not all that bad; it does come with some physical handicaps, but it also offers some redeeming qualities. One of those redeeming qualities is that Geezers do absorb at least a little wisdom during the aging process. Professor Warren Bennis has coauthored a wonderful book on the subject. It is aptly titled “Geeks and Geezers”. The book illustrates how era, values, and defining moments shape leaders and differentiate the perspectives of the two cohorts.
I immediately take umbrage with your uninformed assertion that I am a buy-and-hold investor, and that I am mired in history. Neither is a correct assessment. I will not waste too much verbiage defending my positions since they are not germane to the TA issue. Just be aware that I trade a minimum of twice annually (near the beginning and ending of each calendar year with separate objectives), enter the markets more often given a dynamic environment such as we are currently experiencing, use actively managed mutual funds and ETFs for a large fraction of my portfolio, and vigorously pursue evolving investment concepts.
Although I study history to guide my decision making, I am fully cognizant that history never precisely repeats itself, although it sometimes reflects strong echoes from the past. I am committed to a program of continuing education, and I am dedicated to introducing neophyte investors on this Forum to the nuances of investing. That’s my primary motivation in submitting my rather lengthy postings.
If you are searching for a simple characterization of my investment style, I consider myself an economics-directed investor. I have a rather large portfolio; its size alone essentially means that I own almost all segments of the global marketplace. Therefore, my primary investment tool kit is rooted in national and international economic and political considerations. I try to be very open-minded and flexible when addressing our constantly evolving and maturing investment environment. Sometimes (maybe too often) my judgment fails, but I do learn from those failures. You judge me incorrectly. That hardly matters to me personally except it casts a doubt on the clarity of my submittals. That’s not a good thing.
Prior to retirement, I spent a lifetime as a practicing engineer. I fully understand the need to expect the unexpected. Engineering practice embraces the concepts of inclusive planning, data gathering, cost control, contingencies, safety factors, and multiple backup systems. Those are part of our DNA. By nature we are skeptical and very demanding of proof-of-concept. We love experimental data and like pilot programs to stress test novel approaches. I have consistently applied these common engineering principles to my personal investment program.
Almost by definition, engineers must be an optimistic breed; perplexing and challenging assignments demand that viewpoint. Unabashedly, I am an optimist. Simultaneously, engineers are trained to seek multiple solutions and execute tradeoff studies. We always develop a Plan B as a safety valve for a poorly performing Plan A. Both training and practice have drilled that discipline into our very souls.
Engineers attempt to anticipate failure modes and to accommodate them with innovative designs. We have always employed mechanisms to identify approaching hazards, to provide alternate load pathways, to mitigate component failure damage, and to continue the mission under adverse conditions. Portfolios can be constructed in a similar manner. Mine is.
Our glass is always half-full, but we resiliently seek a stronger glass, and search for propagating cracks in that glass. I apply these time-tested generic engineering principles to my investment philosophy. It has served me well. I do not worry over the marketplace today, nor tomorrow, nor next month. I am confident in the asset allocation decisions that I previously made, and review them very infrequently. For example, I do not currently know the value of my portfolio because it is unnecessary to do so. I do not plan to assess it until the third quarter ends.
By the way, you have properly identified a fundamental limitation in all Technical Analysis. Embedded in that methodology is the assumption that nothing really changes, that the past provides a perfect, mirror image of the future. The TA specialist trades on the reliability and repeatability of chart patterns. Of course that happens randomly, but it is a gross oversimplification.
From your postings, you seem like an angry man. I hope your postings assuage some of that anger and direct it into more productive channels. I am happy with my investments; I hope you are as happy with both your portfolio elements and overall.
Best Wishes.

Hi Guys,
Technical Analysis sings a Siren’s song.
I have noticed an uptick from MFOers who are now defecting to technical analysis to inform their mutual fund investment decisions. That decision is likely prompted by a roiling marketplace that has destroyed investment returns.
Unfortunately, expected Technical Analysis (TA) results are more an illusion than a reality; TA methods are mostly a set of ad hoc rules that have no scientific foundation, little, if any, verifiable returns, and a paucity of documented performance studies. Its limited success is mostly asserted by the countless books and seminars that create wealth for their authors and lecturers, but not for their clients. The Internet offers a zillion technical analyses methods and unsupported claims.
The reason for its popularity is obvious; it promises reward without risk; it promises wealth by next Friday; it promises a mechanical system that requires no anxious decision making. These are false promises that are not reliably deliverable. Random successes occur.
I personally know several investors and have been exposed to a host of financial advisors who champion TA; some are True Believers, but others are slippery charlatans. I actually admire the principle-motivated True Believers, but they will learn over time of the discipline’s shortcomings. I did.
I started investing in the mid-1950s. My initial decision making tool was TA-based. My decisions were rooted in the methods proposed by Robert Edwards and John Magee in their classic book “Technical Analysis of Stock Trends”. I applied their methods using arduous, hand-drawn graphs. I still occasionally consult my tattered copy of their tome. My general conclusion is that pattern investing is a wasteful and profitless investment procedure, although graphs are a useful way to summarize huge data sets and it does yield some very generic trend guidelines.
TA proponents like to equate their methods with those of scientific, natural laws. I suspect that ephemeral comparison is made to foster credibility in the mind of investors; numbers have a powerful influence given uncertain outcomes. But investment outcomes are not governed by inviolable physical laws. Natural physical laws are static and do not change with circumstance or time; investment outcomes are dynamic phenomena that are event and people-driven happenings.
Physical laws are controlled by atoms and electrons on a sub-particle level, and by material properties and interactive forces on a macroscopic level. Equivalent investment laws do not exist because the agents (people, institutions, and events) and the characteristics that generate the interactions change constantly to reflect circumstances and human emotions.
Behavioral research has established that humans are pattern seekers. We like to identify and connect the dots. Technical analysis purveyors trade on this predisposition. And these TA purveyors and their techniques have proliferated. There are hundreds of TA procedures readily available for application. But, do they work as advertised?
What all these TA procedures have in common is the lack of a performance track record. This MIA (Missing In Action military jargon) evidence is shouting a loud message. If the success of the methodology is well established, its purveyor would jump at the opportunity to publish those results. He would be instantly famous. He can’t because it does not exist.
Most often, a recommended TA system is endorsed because of a successful back-tested comparison. Of course it was successful; that’s the primary reason that it is being endorsed. All the other procedures that failed in the search for a fruitful correlation have been summarily rejected and tossed into the wastebasket.
The challenge is if the recommended method will produce consistently superior returns in the future. That is the acid test. Be assured that they all have failed that test somewhere along the road. Otherwise, that surviving TA methodology would be the toast of the investment world. It would quickly and universally be adopted by all of us seeking financial security. It is an unfulfilled dream.
I do not know of any billionaire TA wizards. Even starting with a small kiddy, if these TA systems were so superior, they would create a billionaire in a short timeframe. Historically, equity markets annually return 10 % on average, bond markets about half that return. Warren Buffett manages an annual return in the low 20 % range, as does a rare group of other financial wizards. All these wizards fall into the conservative, fundamentally driven class of investors. Does any billionaire advocate a TA approach as the basis for his wealth? If so, has he documented the approach? My answer to both questions is a firm No.
I have discussed TA with John Murphy at the MoneyShow conferences several times. He is a humble, honest, and dedicated TA True Believer. I own several of his numerous books on the subject. But he can not document his methods with hard performance data. He is an emperor without cloths. He works very hard at conferences selling his books; I suspect he makes far more from giving investment advice than from actual investment success.
In almost all forms, TA is simply a momentum strategy, either based on price movement or trading volume dynamics. In the mutual fund world, the FundX family of funds have practiced that discipline for an extended period. Their flagship product is FundX Upgrader, FUNDX. Janet Brown is the president of the DAL Investment Company that assembles and managers the growing FundX family. She is a compelling advocate for their brand of the generic TA approach. It is a pure momentum play that has enjoyed some successes, as well as some recent disappointments.
The issue here is that the deployed methodology is not constant over the reporting timeframe. It is slowly maturing so the record is distorted by that evolutionary process. In its early embodiment, the FundX holdings were more heavily committed to a small number of hot-hands, and diversification was sacrificed. Methodology adjustments have been made.
I subscribe to the WSJ. I wonder why, on a daily basis, the Journal graphically displays a 65-day Index Moving Average, and each Monday, it presents both the 65-day and the 200-day Moving Averages. These are rather arbitrary standards. Why not a 100-day criteria? The perturbations are endless.
Most other TA techniques are similarly vague about their selected data collection logic and criteria timeframes. They seem purely arbitrary, and most likely represent a rule set derived for a specific stock analyzed for a specific time. The operational rule extracted from this restricted study was extrapolated to become a universal rule. That rule has almost zero likelihood of being precisely applicable for the broad array of equities that populate the global marketplace. Its application to a group of ever-changing holdings that compose a mutual fund is even more suspect. Good luck on that extrapolation.
Can anyone explain the rationale or logic that dictated the various data gathering periods that are incorporated into the MACD (Moving Average Convergence/Divergence) statistic developed by Gerald Appel? A 12-day minus a 26-day accumulation period coupled with a 9-day crossing signal indicator seems unduly arbitrary. This unlikely specificity smacks of a data mining operation.
And MACD is just one of scores and scores of TA Indicators that are proposed for investment decision making. If that’s not enough, the TA protagonist also endorses combinations of this infinite array of dubious tools. An equation, or a theory, or a procedure that does not rest on a rock-solid fundamental understanding is literally a crapshoot. Do you want to risk a secure retirement on a dice throw?
In some ways TA is religion-like. True Believers believe because they want to believe.
Let me close by offering a challenge. If you are a TA True Believer and apply that approach to all or a segment of your personal portfolio (not someone else’s unverifiable claims made on the Internet), please submit a posting to this forum. Share your success stories and wisdom with us. I am still searching for a TA practitioner who has achieved market rewards that are a few percentage points above a realistic benchmark for his portfolio. To paraphrase a song, a good TA system is hard to find.
I’m patently waiting. I am always prepared to learn. We humans are hard wired for pattern recognition and are unduly susceptible to false patterns. Anyone for Robert Prechter and his form of the Elliot Wave Theory? How about some Oscillators or some Head and Shoulders necklines? Or a Fibonacci number or two? God, I hope not. All this is glittering junk science.
Best Regards.

Howdy ron,
We're always pleased to have input about our holdings. The discussions help keep all of us alert, eh???
As to the numerous holdings. We have several retirement accounts that can not yet be consolidated/rollovers. So, when attempting to be invested in particular sectors and/or funds; we are sometimes at the whim of choices available from various vendors. We are usually able get a bucket full of similar offerings; but from various sources; and this works out okay as these "group of funds" effectively become one large mix, as with the HY/HI bond funds.
This house hopes to be out of the permanent work force within one year. Other opportunities for part-time decent work exists; but the full time grinder hopefully comes to an end. We'll both miss the additional income that could be had, the added SS increase and no more participation in company retirement plans. Tis the trade off and the decision, eh?
We have been good with our savings and spending over many years; and don't anticipate that we will run out of money if we live to 90. On the other hand, we have already both had "work" since we were very young and it is time to move on with other "work", such as continued efforts with the portfolio.
One may suppose in the long run, part of everything is some form of a gamble; we are/have just tried to keep the game in our favor.
We have always been very good with keeping a running total of living expenses and know the "knowns" for food, gas, house, taxes, etc., and know some inflation will adjust some of these areas. There are bound to be some changes yet unknown, but we plan to have enough slack monies to not have to dig deep into other monies. Heck, if I gotta dial the winter heat way down and wear more clothing inside, than that is what it will take.
Ultimately, IF we can stand back from drawing on SS too early to let that build, and coast with our pension and side work monies , and eventually at 70.5 age; have to start withdrawals on the IRA's; we just may be able to stretch things til the end.
Another side of the retirement thing, is that we probably all know some who worked past the time of stopping; and in spite of longer live spans on the "average", there are those who are/were on the "young" side of the averages and never found much time left to discover the other areas of knowledge and pleasure.
Retirement will find a bit more travel; but both of us travelled globally in our early twenties; when we didn't mind carrying our house and belongings in a 75 pound backpack. We could not do that today, so the travel will be different.
If we err in our judgement about running out of money; we will have hopefully had enough time to add to our more pleasant retirement period. We will be just about as busy, but doing other things.
Thanks ron for the questions and notation. You sure got me into a chatter box
Take care of you and yours,
Catch

Volatile stock market to leave lasting scars on fund investors' psyche
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2015951294_fundoutflows21.html
Making sense of advice from Wall Street professionals
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/article_7de2dc3f-33a7-549c-a67d-0d02e56c4ca8.html
Don't panic in reaction to stock market swings
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-investor-tips-20110821,0,89683.story
retirement savers who did not blink saw big gains
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/retirement-savers-who-didnt-blink-saw-big-gains-2011-08-18?siteid=nwhpf
pimco diversified income bet big on EM bonds
http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/value/archive/pimco-diversified-income-bonds-emerging-markets.html
wallstreet bully
http://www.theetfbully.com/2011/08/last-week-in-review-etf-news-and-blog-posts-to-8212011/
be like buffett - buy fears
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/113363/be-more-like-buffett-barrons?mod=bb-budgeting&sec=topStories&pos=5&asset=&ccode=
gold could be over-priced
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article29994.html

Tony, with all due respect your author is presenting a false choice here. It may also be considered a red herring as it distracts from some very real issues. Definition of "investor" is always a tough one in the first place. Is that anyone with some skin in the game? Many workers have been "defaulted" into target retirement funds where they work who have no idea what they're investing in. Some don't even realize they're investing in a mutual fund, or for that matter couldn't tell ya what a mutual fund is.
But, we digress. Yes there's some real anger in this land and it surfaces in some of the posts on the board. IMHO no one here is angry at "the market", but rather at incompetence at the highest levels which adversely affects markets, and also at elements in society, particularly elected leaders, who have perhaps unwittingly made the markets an uneven playing field or, worse yet, have corrupted them by promoting the false assumption that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can achieve a comfortable retirement through market based investments managed by himself. Kind of a modern day version of "Sugar Candy Mountain" in Orwell's Animal Farm.
Ain't so and the politicians know it. For starters it ignores widely differing education levels and skills among these "investors" and also ignores the fact that markets are by their very nature susceptible to peaks and valleys, either of which can persist for decades. The false assumption does in fact lead to disillusionment among many and the angst your author is likely referencing. More importantly, it has led to/allowed a trashing of pensions public and private alike. Even the minimal safety net provided by Social Security is now threatened. Meanwhile wealth continues to concentrate more and more in the hands of a few. Warren Buffet maintains that in many years he pays a smaller percentage of his earnings in taxes than does his secretary or house-keeper. And yes, it makes me angry.
Thanks for the post but I must take issue, hank

I haven't stopped by in a while ... hey looks like 2008 all over again :-)
Doing more of the same this time this time around: Five or so years from retirement: Still saving like crazy, some tax harvesting of obvious long time losers like DODGX and VEURX (and even some QQQ that's been stinking up my portfolio since 2000), buying on the dips but limiting my bets to a thousand or so a week (so as not to fall into the "falling bloody axe" trap.) This time around I have given up on managed funds almost completely. Vanguard lets me trade their ETFs free, so I can consolidate into sectors like VPU, VDE, VWO, VTI a few shares at a time..
Asset allocation worked for me 2008-2010. As stocks fell, my cash increased to about 15%, I bought until cash fell to 10 or 12%, since late 2010 I've seen mostly saving cash and conservative allocation sector funds. Now it's back to stocks and conservative allocation funds. I don't think S&P500 will fall much below 1000, but 1500 is a long way away.

Howdy,
NOTE; back to the original format for this; so that new folks who visit this write, may know more about the reason(s) for the holdings.
Again, a thank you to all who post the links and also start and participate in the many fine commentaries woven into the message threads.
For those who don't know; I ramble away about this and that, at least once each week.
NOTE: For those who visit MFO, this portfolio is designed for retirement, capital preservation and to stay ahead of inflation creep; if and when it returns. This is not a buy and hold portfolio, and is subject to change on any given day; based upon perceptions of market directions. All assets in this portfolio are in tax-sheltered accounts; and any fund distributions are reinvested in the funds. Gains or losses are computed from actual account values.
While looking around..... I won't attempt to add anything to the numerous posts of the past couple of weeks; as these have been a lot to chew upon and I will presume most folks here have read the posts. I will be most curious as to what words or lack of words are expressed by Mr. Bernanke at the Jackson Hole summit this next week. The Fed can still fiddle around with which duration Treasury bonds it chooses to help "adjust"; but their influence is limited by "all in the global market place" who really "decide" what the yields should be, associated to all other risk in the world markets. I can not speak for others here at MFO who I know also live in Michigan; but our portfolio and related thoughts about any forward growth in the U.S. economy is still tempered from many years ago (1985 ish) and viewing (then) the slow unwind of the manufacturing sector in this state. Not unlike other states with a variety of large and small industry; the unwind continued with the closing of the 1,000's of many small machine and parts vendor businesses. Of course, all of this small and large company unwind affected the many businesses that benefited from the highly paid employed. Many of these small business operations have been closed for years. Related to this; and something that still makes me point at the tv (beginning in Dec 2008 through yesterday, Aug 19) to tell them they don't "get it" are the commentators who continue to compare today to the recession period of the early 1980's. Friday, Aug 19; on Charlie Rose's program, a Mr. Ip (the Economist Magazine) stated that the economy came "roaring" back in 1982; after the various experiments with monetary policy. Well, YES; but that is not where the economy is today !!! The manufacturing/industrial/middle class base is NOT even similar to 1982. My thoughts to these folks, including Warren Buffett (a most fine and knowledgeable person); is that this comparision is totally invalid, and perhaps from whatever life experiences shaping their viewpoints along with too much time with "data" and too little time with the "real folks world" has perverted their thoughts and that they may be caught in the; "they don't know, that they don't know." This syndrome, among many other problems has and is a most apparent problem in DC. Someone/some folks are wrong about the state of the economy; and I hope it is not this house. OK, enough jabber from this fella today; as I have rambled enough through the past week in the threads here.
Such are the numerous battles with investments attempting to capture a decent return and minimize the risk.
We live and invest in interesting times, eh?
Hey, I probably forgot something; and hopefully the words make some sense.
Comments and questions always welcomed.
Good fortune to you, yours and the investments.
Take care,
Catch
SELLs/BUYs THIS PAST WEEK:
NONE
Portfolio Thoughts:
Our holdings had a -.01% move this past week. And yes, we are satisfied with our risk adjusted returns YTD. If the portfolio can pull a +10 to 12% for the year; you will not hear any whining from this house. (This sentence was from an April write; and I/we suppose a +5% for the year may now look good, too !) Our portfolio is at - 2% from the high point in mid-July. Obviously, the cash and some bonds are supporting the loses in the equity/high yield/income bond sectors. I will still maintain, as noted several weeks ago here; that a -25% in any of the broad indexes may be as low as the hedge funds, big traders and the machines may be able to tolerate; before buying again. Some sectors have already hit or are near the - 25% pull back. I can envision the "algos" set in the machines for the - 25% BUY signal. We continue to hold our equity positions, as the % vs the overall portfolio totals is low enough to not completely kill our monies invested; and any loss taken now with a sell; may be selling near a short term bottom. We may, however; sell into a short term equity rally. I/we, at this house; are surely not in a postion to "guess" where the equity markets are headed at this time.
Good investment fortune to all in the coming months.
The old Funds Boat may make 5% or 25% this year. I expect some rough waters, changing winds and opposing currents; causing the most serious attention being given to a firm hand upon the rudder control. (April report text)
The immediate below % of holdings are only determined by a "fund" name, NO M* profile this week
CASH = 8.3%
Mixed bond funds = 81.8%
Equity funds = 9.9%
-Investment grade bond funds 18.6%
-Diversified bond funds 18.5%
-HY/HI bond funds 25.8%
-Total bond funds 14.6%
-Foreign EM/debt bond funds 4.3%
-U.S./Int'l equity/speciality funds 9.9%
This is our current list: (NOTE: I have added a speciality grouping below for a few of fund types)
---High Yield/High Income Bond funds
FAGIX Fid Capital & Income
SPHIX Fid High Income
FHIIX Fed High Income
DIHYX TransAmerica HY
DHOAX Delaware HY (front load waived)
---Total Bond funds
FTBFX Fid Total
PTTRX Pimco Total
---Investment Grade Bonds
APOIX Amer. Cent. TIPS Bond
DGCIX Delaware Corp. Bd
FBNDX Fid Invest Grade
FINPX Fidelity TIPS Bond
OPBYX Oppenheimer Core Bond
---Global/Diversified Bonds
FSICX Fid Strategic Income
FNMIX Fid New Markets
DPFFX Delaware Diversified
TEGBX Templeton Global (load waived)
LSBDX Loomis Sayles
---Speciality Funds (sectors or mixed allocation)
FCVSX Fidelity Convertible Securities (bond/equity mix)
FRIFX Fidelity Real Estate Income (bond/equity mix)
FSAVX Fidelity Select Auto
FFGCX Fidelity Global Commodity
FDLSX Fidelity Select Leisure
FSAGX Fidelity Select Precious Metals
RNCOX RiverNorth Core Opportunity (bond/equity)
---Equity-Domestic/Foreign
CAMAX Cambiar Aggressive Value
FDVLX Fidelity Value
FSLVX Fidelity Lg. Cap Value
FLPSX Fidelity Low Price Stock

Reply to @JoeNoEskimo: Totally agree with JoeNo that investing has become gambling. Don't think it was always that way. At least not what they taught in school. Today there seems no logic whatever. Checked cd rates and your looking at maybe half percent if ya willing to lock her up for couple three years. H%#* your better off burying it in in a hole at them rates. Why would ya trust FDIC insurance when some politicians appear willing to see govt. default?
Now whoever decided Joe or Jane or Molly down at the dollar store would be better investing their hard earned cash in the markets themselves than having a company sponsored retirement plan ought have their %$&^#% head examined. H@#% this is enough to give Buffet or Lynch ulcers. Whats little feller doin in these crazy markets? Trends last fantastically long nowadays and go to fantastic extremes. Could be computers as some speculate. I think has more do either with crowd mentality with so many people playing or maybe the big players with the skills and information to push everything to its limits. Maybe these fellers figure govt will bail them out rather than see economy go down the tubes when things backfire.
And another thing, was reported on the news yesterday that in this country 1% of the population controls a third of the wealth. Now with so many poor people whose gonna be left to buy them cars and houses to keep the economy running?
Now I did try gambling one time and remember blowing the whole wad on a football game where the 43 point "favorite" folded in the first quarter and couldn't get out of it's own way. Cured me for good. So I will say at least in investing your likely to end up with some of your $$ left at the end. But maybe not much.

I ended up with a lot of cash when I consolidated retirement accounts recently. I'm gradually moving that cash into emerging market equities and bonds. I also like ag funds, mainly MOO. Bought some LatAm (ILF). For the rest I'm adding mainly to existing positions in Matthews funds. The only individual stock I'm accumulating is Nestle. Don't really care if we haven't hit bottom; still have plenty of dry powder.

Maurice,
I know I'm probably asking too much right now :)
I think I'm just feeling very frustrated when I look at my 401K and that it's only earned about 1% annually for the past decade. It's made me really want to take control of my investments and at the very least do the best I can with it, whatever returns I may get. When I started working and obtaining a 401K, and really all I had learned was, put as much as you can in your 401K, IRAs, etc. Then like I said, I literally only earned about 1% over the past 10 years. I never did much with my 401K, never really understood the investments, just knew that money came out of my paycheck every 2 weeks and that it should grow over time. But what I more recently realized is I think I'm one of probably millions of other American workers with 401Ks that don't know anything about investing. I'm part of the post labor-union era I'll call it, who also out of high-school and college, never was given real financial advice regarding retirement or investing. My parents for example both have pensions and health-care taking care of them in their retirement. I asked my father recently if he had a Roth IRA, and he said no, don't know much about those. It's also funny, I just recently picked up a Dave Ramsey book that someone had given me 5-8 years ago, and I caught this section where he talked about don't invest in bonds and investments that only earn 4-8%, and instead investing in a mutual fund (nothing specific, just said mutual fund) that you can expect to earn 12% annually over the next 30 years, like that was normal. And I just chuckled. And out of my curiosity I looked up historical returns for the S & P 500 and I was blown away by what I saw. Other than recently, only in 1974 and pre-1940 did the 10Yr. Avg Return Rate fall below 2%.
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/2803347
And really the period between 1979 until 2007 long-term returns were really good, especially 1983 - 2001. So, I think for me, all of this has been a real a wake up call. That I can't just rely on the markets to earn the money I hope to have come retirement without thinking about it.
I have to say though, doing all this research the past few months I feel like has become a new hobby for me. Even though I haven't put all my money to work yet to where I want it, I've found it to be very fascinating. And just watching the markets going nuts lately is actually another lesson I'm learning to try to stay calm :). It's hard to not be distracted by it.
So yea, whether I can actually achieve the high return with low risk is something I'll just shoot for, but at the very least I'd like to keep learning about funds with really good mangers who will make much better decisions than myself could ever make. And that is really all I'm trying to do. Buying into funds with managers who if they are taking risks, know when to move money out of equities when needed and to put back into when the markets are ready to rebound. It really boils down to trust. Finding those funds that help me sleep better at night. And based on what many of you have said, it sounds like MAPIX fits that mold I'm looking for from an Emerging Markets point of view.
I just want to say to this site and to everyone that posts here, I really appreciate the input and the knowledge sharing. It's helped me immensely in trying to get a grip on my investments and I am grateful for it.
By the way, I'm curious. What kind of investors are the majority of people who post/read here and are there any others like me, who don't deal or work in finance and are currently working and just trying to make better choices for their retirement portfolio?

Jardine Matheson is one of a number of similar conglomerates in Asia, some of which have been around for many decades (such as Jardine.) Swire and Hutchison Whampoa are other examples. Swire is interesting (in that it owns Cathay Pacific and a Coca-Cola Bottler that covers a good portion of Asia and some of the US). Genting Berhad is also of interest, with its resort properties in Singapore and soon the US. Given its holdings though, Genting is particularly tied to the swings of local economies.
Jardine has a pretty fascinating history and (I thought) appealing mixture of businesses - there is both Jardine and Jardine Strategic, and Jardine Strategic owns a 20% stake in Rothschilds Continuation Holdings, which is the financial holding company of the Rothschilds.
"Until 2008, the only non-family interest was Jardine Matheson, a hong which holds the other 20% of Rothschild Continuation Holdings. The stake was acquired in 2005 from Royal & Sun Alliance through the Jardine Strategic subsidiary, which specializes in leveraging stakes to protect family owners.[7] Jardines acted as Rothschilds' China agent from 1838 onwards" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_M_Rothschild_&_Sons)
longer Bloomberg article on the relationship between the two companies -
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=apHai5xmbq9s
Jardine Strategic owns the majority of Jardine Matheson and Jardine Strategic is part of Jardine Matheson. As noted, "It (Strategic) in effect owns its own corporate parent, enabling the Keswick family to control the group without providing a majority of the capital. This expertise in protecting family owners was shared in 2005 when it took a 20% stake in Rothschild Continuation Holdings, a major merchant bank." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jardine_Strategic_Holdings)
Jardine chair Sir Henry Keswick is also listed as a director of Rothschilds Continuation Holdings. Jardines is really a dynasty - I think - in the old-fashioned sense, which I found appealing.
The two biggest parts of Jardine are majority-owned subsidiary Dairy Farm (a massive group of retail operations, ranging from 7-11's to hypermarkets to restaurants to a few IKEA stores and Hong Kong Land (50% owned by Jardine). There's also Mandarin Oriental hotels, among other subsidiaries. If one digs in the reports, Strategic also holds some small investments in other companies, such as Tata Power (to use an example from last I looked, things may have changed.) Jardine Pacific is another interesting part, containing all non-listed businesses, such as various operations at Hong Kong airport.
Additionally, the whole thing rests on whether one believes in the continued rise of Asia over the next decade or two (and as I've said, I believe that, although I do believe there will be problems along the way.) If not, then something like Jardine would be of no interest.
Again, this is a stock, so it is certainly a risk and one *MUST DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH*. I wanted to own an EM stock or two for the long-term (5-10 years+) and Jardine was the most appealing that I found.
In terms of Asian-centric funds that would be comfortable holdings for the long-term, the search - I think - starts and ends w/Matthews Asian Growth/Income (MACSX) and Matthews Asia Dividend (MAPIX.) I'd recommend the great majority of people - especially more conservative investors or those nearing retirement - interested in EM stick with funds instead of specific stocks, and particularly the Matthews funds listed above.
The Pimco EM Multi-Asset fund has not released holdings yet, but my guess is that it looks like an EM-focused version of fund-of-funds (and some other stuff) Pimco Global Multi-Asset.

Not sure which T Rowe funds hold the fund, but the fund has a mix of real estate stocks and natural resources stocks. I'd rather suggest for those closer to retirement to hold permanent portfolio, which has both as a portion of assets, as well as swiss francs, gold and silver. That would be a more "low key" real assets fund.

Reply to @steppinrazor:
Hey Step,
Initially the phone was transferred numerous times since it was actually hard for the TRP phone jockeys to find any information on it. They we more and more curious themselves about the fund and finally found a "secret fund expert" who provided me and the "phone specialists" with a conference call where by I was able to ask a few questions after I was asked,
"So, why are you interested in this fund in the first place?"
To make a long story longer the expert pointed out that the fund was an institutional only fund and that individuals could not invest directly in it.
It does seem to be part of the Lifecycle retirement funds as David had mentioned.
bee

it's time to buy
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052702304183104576488481370158912.html?mod=djemBolTWMP_h#articleTabs_panel_article=1
http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/113305/fixed-income-bear-market-strategies-bankrate?mod=fidelity-livingretirement&cat=fidelity_2010_living_in_retirement

I think the whole thing becomes trying to "think outside the box" and in the manner that investing doesn't have to just be the traditional "bonds and stocks", "hard assets" don't have to be just commodities or commodity producers. I like Brookfield Infrastructure, which is a collection of varied assets around the globe - everything from rail in Australia to power distribution in various countries to ports to timber, plus it pays about 5.7% and the parent company is the giant Brookfield Asset Management. I really like MLPs, but don't want to be purely in energy-related names; there are some other non-energy ones that are worth looking at, such as the Fertilizer ones. Several MLPs were actually doing quite well throughout much of yesterday's 500+ point decline.
I do think that REITs represent a hard asset choice, but I think it really is tough to be as specific as I want to be about it. I like prime real estate in high-end locations that has a high replacement cost. Again, I look at Brookfield and Brookfield Office Properties (BPO). Hard-to-replace properties in ultra-prime locations. I like logistics, but I don't know of many examples in this country - in Singapore, there's the Mapletree Logistics Trust (I believe there's a pink sheet version, but it barely ever trades.) I DO NOT LIKE RETAIL. Even if things really come back, I think retail is overbuilt in this country and I think technology may lead to further moves away from B & M retailers or specific sectors (Circuit City is gone and Best Buy is still not performing well) may go away. Again, I do not like retail REITs and do not want anything to do with them. The only unique little piece of a retail REIT that I would like are the prime outlets (outlet malls that are a collection of more mid-to-high end stores) managed by Simon Property Group - I think these are unique and represent appealing values. However, I wouldn't want anything to do with SPG as a whole at these levels.
I do think that apartment REITs will continue to do well if things continue at this rate/along this path. Furthermore, many REITs have run quite a bit (although I'm sure they've come down recently.) REIT Preferreds may also be an option. The hotel REITs are sorta interesting in theory, but a number of them really got demolished in 2008 because they completely mistimed the market. New hotel REIT Pebblebrook (PEB) is interesting because it's largely about buying high-end properties at distressed rates, but if this is another 2008, it doesn't matter, it's just going to get obliterated (it owns a great selection of hotels, though, and on its website, there are specific factsheets for each property, in terms of what discount it was bought at, etc.)
Principal Global Dividend (PGDCX) holds some in MLPs and REITs.
Pimco Commodity RR invests in commodity derivatives, but actively manages the collateral (TIPS, but also other things.)
Pimco Commodity RR is a good position for a commodity derivatives fund. The fund that I particularly like, Highbridge Dynamic Commodity (HDCCX) is unfortunately now closed (and I wish I wouldn't have sold it entirely.) Currently, I have PCRRX, DBA, CFD and a little RYLFX.
Additionally, as I noted in the other thread, I do like Dupont because of its exposure to agriculture, as well as food ingredients/enzymes. However, as I mentioned, if this is another 2008, you don't want to be in it. I particularly like the Flavors section - companies like Givaudan (GVDNY.PK), Senisent (SXT) and part of Dupont (DD), as well as a few others, such as Novozymes. Sensient is particularly interesting - they had a good quarter and are trading at a reasonable valuation. However, like anything else - DO YOUR RESEARCH. This is an area that I think people don't think about and I think it'll be increasingly important in upcoming years because of science trying to find ways to create packaged food without using so much salt and other discoveries - and the "science of food" (and also household products to some degree) is what you're really seeing these companies be involved in and I think that will be of increasing importance in the next decade (and likely behind Dupont's purchase of Danisco.) I just don't think that many people think about how the flavor of their ice cream was created or how the color of their drink was made, but these companies do well.
I do like Archer Daniels Midland at these levels for a little bit, as it's just not done very well and I think it's not going anywhere.
I do like more unusual commodity plays, including both Noble and Glencore. I picked up Glencore (a litttleee bit) in the last week or so, and as I noted in the other thread, I find it a fascinating company (and the scale of it is pretty remarkable), but it does have a controversial past. Noble I owned last year and sold early this year or so - at these levels (about $1.25) I think I may look at it again. However, both are volatile in the extreme, so are purely for a little bit of speculation. Same with Sprott Resource (SCPZF.PK.) Noble, which is an Asian-based commodity trading house, has a map of assets on its website, which is a particularly impressive collection of ports and other facilities around the globe. Same with Glencore, which has a pretty massive amount of owned/leased farmland. Click on the points on the map on the link below to see Noble's assets.
http://www.thisisnoble.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=277&Itemid=325&lang=en
In terms of healthcare, I like(d) Teva, but sold at $49 not that long ago and I'm stunned to see it's now $10 less. It's just not doing particularly well and I think I'll keep to funds regarding health care.
%'s and particular allocations are going to be different based on risk tolerance and distance to retirement.
I think this is the big question: you aren't going to earn anything on your money for the next couple of years. Inflation is not going to be zero (and I definitely think it will be higher than others think it will be.) Growth is certainly not going to be high. So, what do you do in that environment.

I have reservations chasing any singular theme...the most recent being gold/silver. I understand its place in a diversified portfolio but my reason for starting this thread was to formulate ideas on creating a well diversified portfolio of "real assets". What would these be and in what percentage would one hold them long term.
Real Assets to me include:
Precious Metals...Gold, Silver, Platinum, Palladium
Natural Resources/ Commodities...Food, Fertilizers, Fiber, Metals, Minerals, Energy (Oil, NG, coal, etc,)
REITs / MLP / Utilities...REITS, Argi-businesses, Poles, Pipes, dams, Towers, Cables, Wires
Maybe also,
Companies that manufacture "things"...verses provide services...
Drugs & Medical Device/Equipment
Precious Metals:
rono has done a great job over the years of educating me on the importance of gold and silver well beyond the ordinary choices. Hopefully he will be kind enough to continue. Personally, my exposure to these metals come in the form of owning gold/silver within PRPFX = Permanent Portfolio. I also have PM mining exposure using USAGX = USAA Preciuos Metals and Mining and VGPMX = Vanguard Precious Metals. Also, I would assume I have smaller amounts of exposure of PM in diversified funds such as VWO = Vanguard Emerging Markets since much of the mining operations are located in these emerging countries. My goal is to maintain a 10% weighting in precious metals.
Natural Resources / Commodities:
Scott and others have been very helpful in providing commentary on these choices. I must admit I need to better understand all of the choices in this space as well as its place in my portfolio. I have exposure to this space through PCRDX = PIMCO Commodity Real Return Strategy D class. My understanding is that this fund purchases derivatives as well as preferred stock. Derivatives are buying futures in an asset verses owning the real asset so I am interested in clarifying in my mind the PCRDX's place in the commodities portion of my portfolio. Individual commodity stocks seem riskier than a collection of the stocks in a mutual fund or ETF. I also have a investments in:
VIS = Vanguard Industrial Materials
VDE = Vanguard Energy
Maybe Scott or someone else could provide a primer on this space. I would very much appreciate it. Again, 10% weighting in this area is my goal.
REITs / MLP / Utilities:
Here I own VNQ = Vanguard REIT, GASFX = FBR Gas Utilities, VOX = Telecom, MATFX = Mathews Asia Tech, PRMTX = Media and Tech, CSRSX = Cohen & Steers Realty Shares
This space seems plagued by bad news both inside and outside. A big driver of our economy was real estate development. It provides employment, consumer spending, manufacturing, as well as bank financing. Our balance sheet recession is slow to unwind and full of volatility (bad news) and real estate react directly to these dynamics. I wouldn't call this investment space dead money but it feels like it is on life support at times. Low interest rates should soak up some housing inventory but a home is no longer the "fake" wealth multiplier it once was. I am looking at REITS that manage rental property, retirement communities as investments that provide present income and future growth. Another 10% here as well
Here's and interesting chart on the risk/reward of holding differing allocations of real assets on the last decade:
http://www.principalfunds.com/investor/promo/dra/effect.html?WT.mc_id=dra_micro_effects
That's enough for now...your comments very much appreciated.
bee

Howdy scott,
I had to run the roads today with other work; but had plans of perhaps going into a few other funds....likely energy stuff; but when hearing of the market moves in the last few hours decided to keep the money horses in the corral. I am sure energy related likely went up today, and the near term bottom may have already been touched. But, I am not playing with this market when it is having these big mood swings.
AND, the infinity thing with low Fed rates; that should take me through my/our retirement years at this house..........:):):)
No surprise with this move, eh??? Not like there is a powerhouse economy on the horizon.
Lastly, for now; is to consider moving back into more precious metals again; in spite of the hugh run.
OK, take care. I have a 5:30 appt and must get leaving.
Regards,
Catch

Back in May I received great feedback here as I grappled with whether I needed to retain a financial adviser to help manage my retirement portfolio. I opted to keep it simple and stay with Vanguard, switching to three index funds and rollover my 401K to an IRA. Among the several good suggestions was one from MJG to read Daniel Solin's "The Smartest Investment Book You'll Ever Read." I just finished it and it is fabulous! It is an easy and entertaining read which makes a powerful case for limiting a portfolio to index funds only. The historical data is overwhelming that precious few funds beat the market over the long haul. Two closing thoughts: I wish Solin would update the book since it published in 2006. It could be useful to have his data and insights covering the turmoil and volatility of the last five years. And I'd suggest David add the Solin book to his best books list elsewhere on the MFO board. Thanks again, MJG. Next, Burton Malkiel's "A Random Walk Down Wall Street."

Reply to @Maurice: Awhile back Dan Fuss came fourth that he mis-read the market and the shareholders suffered in 2008. The fund has since bounced back strongly. Now the fund has significant exposure to energy producing countries including Canada and Australia. One outstanding risk I see is are longer end duration on many of the holdings.
I also agree that 50% holding in high yield is too risky in a retirement portfolio. After all high yield bonds correlate strongly to equities comparing to treasury or investment quality bonds. In this low yield environment it is difficult to obtain sufficient income from dividend alone.