@msf - My account closing fees ($75/account) charged by Scottrade were reimbursed to me by Fidelity.

The good news, if you can call it that, it that they're not ignoring a 50 year customer. As far as they know, you've only been with them 25 years - their records only go back to the 90s.
This came up in a conversation I had with Fidelity today - the rep explained that she says "thank you for being a customer since at least 199x", because they can't tell if you've been with them longer than that.
Wait until Fidelity has another cash promotion and then do a partial transfer back from ML. They charge $50 for a full transfer, but nothing for a partial.
https://www.merrilledge.com/pricing

I just earned a thou from ML for transferring three retirement accounts from Fido, leaving one. The downside is unavailability of some funds, of course, but they did transfer ones they do not 'carry'.
I asked Fido beforehand about retention / stay incentives, esp as a 50y customer, and got zilch.

Great find @Ted.
I’m always interested in what T Rowe Price is doing. Interesting that they had a Retirement Income Fund for many years, but decided about 5 years ago to rename it Retirement Balanced.
Now a new Retirement Income fund? Modeling its performance expectations on their current 2020 Target date fund would make it somewhat more aggressive than their previous Retirement income fund (TRRIX). In hindsight, rebranding the old fund must have been Price’s way of “clearing the deck” for this new one. Brings to mind, “What’s in a name ...”. When a company reaches the point where there are no longer enough names to go around due to their offering so many funds, what does that say? :)
Still reading this story. Not entirely clear whether there’s a glide slope with this one - but probably not.
(Actually, their website says there is a glide slope). I don’t understand where the firm is going with the launch of so many new funds in recent years. This one is a real puzzle (unless their goal is just to attract more and more assets). Dodge & Cox seems to do just fine with only 5 or 6 funds.
One thing that would steer me clear of this one - In order for it to work as intended, an investor would seem to have to entrust his/her entire retirement nest egg to this fund. Diversifying into several other funds would appear to thwart the fund’s intended goal.

FYI: Ask most people about the bitcoin bubble, and they’ll probably have the same reaction: It’s interesting, but it won’t affect me. After all, they’ll figure, they aren’t investing in bitcoin, so if there is a bubble, and it does burst, they’ll be just fine.
Well, maybe they should start worrying.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-bitcoins-bubble-matters-1507515361

I've had the same experience with E*TRADE. I've rolled over or transferred 401Ks and IRAs several times over the last 5 or 6 years and every time I've asked they've offered me cash that matches the scale Maurice mentioned. IIRC there was one time they were advertising a promotion but the other cases I've just asked.

AQR Core Plus Bond Fund
AQR High Yield Bond Fund
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1444822/000119312517306006/d368916d485apos.htm

I can confirm that just calling and asking can reap benefits/rewards. My primary account has always been with Fidelity. I also had a smaller account at Scottrade (<$50K) that I didn't want to have merged with TD Ameritrade. I got 100 free trades ($495) for moving the funds to Fidelity after speaking with a Fidelity rep.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month
http://www.nationalbreastcancer.org/breast-cancer-awareness-month
I guess all these millions of people walking and raising money every year are wrong and wasting their time. Kick them to the curb, when they start soliciting money from you. Or maybe, just maybe, it is NIH and HHS that needs to become aware, and stop telling people that preventative testing is excessive and unnecessary.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're getting at in the first part. Of course more women should be aware of the preventive services like mammograms that are already available to them. If the government is going to cut back on things like informing people about what the ACA provides, it's up to others to carry that message. Why would we kick the messengers to the floor?

The results of the survey suggest a need for health literacy, with 68 percent of women being unaware that coverage of mammograms is mandated by the federal Affordable Care Act, which states the screening be given without a co-pay or deductible, Phyllis Greenberger, president and CEO of SWHR, told FoxNews.com.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/30/more-than-half-women-dont-get-mammograms-study-finds.html
As to NIH and HHS telling people that preventive testing is excessive and unnecessary, my guess is that you wouldn't go advising healthy 18 year old women to get mammograms every six months, just in case. We probably agree that at some point preventive testing does become excessive and unnecessary. It's a question of where one draws the line, not whether preventive testing could possibly be excessive.
The ACA generally bases what preventive services be covered at zero cost on USPSTF's guidelines (which say that mammograms offer substantial or moderate benefit starting at age 50, but just small net benefit between 40 and 49). So a specific exception was written into the ACA to include mammograms for women 40 and above.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/10/aca-doesnt-restrict-mammograms/
I believe it's because of the way the law was written that this exception was going to expire. But for whatever reason, the Health Resources and Services Admin (part of HHS) recently updated its guidelines so that the ACA would continue covering mammograms at age 40.
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/preventive-services-for-women-covered-by-private-health-plans-under-the-affordable-care-act/
In addition, USPSTF points out that its "'C' [small net benefit] recommendation ... is often misinterpreted as a recommendation against mammography screening or coverage. In the linkage to coverage established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the USPSTF's role is limited to evaluating the science to determine the net benefit of a clinical preventive service. [USPSTF's] review of the scientific evidence may be only one of the inputs to determining insurance coverage; often it is the floor to determining minimal coverage, not the ceiling."
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/convergence-and-divergence-around-breast-cancer-screening/breast-cancer-screening1
It is in that gray area of small net benefit (over the whole population) where conversations between patient and doctor may be most productive. Different people place different emphasis on possible outcomes, so what might make sense for one person won't make sense for another.
Here's the Susan G. Komen page on Weighing the Benefits and Risks of Mammography including sections on overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
As noted in a lengthy Mother Jones column: "With so much rhetoric flying back and forth, it can be difficult for women to make truly informed decisions." That makes talking with doctors about the real risks and benefits even more important.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/faulty-research-behind-mammograms-breast-cancer/

Mainstay's PR holdings, last I read their commentary, were all insured debt, in contrast to Opp'heimer. The 1m total returns reflect the difference: MMHAX -0.59%, OPTAX -2.65%, ORNAX -2.88%. M* shows the HY muni fund category with a -0.60% return for the same period.

The SIM philosophy was very popular on the board several years ago. I never practiced it. But I think it was to some extent a self-fulfilling prophecy. For a few years, anyway, the market appeared to sell off around that time of year.
What I observed happening over several years, however, was that those who practiced the belief began to sell a bit earlier every year to get “out in front of the crowd”. Instead of waiting for the market to tank on May 1, why not play it safe and sell on April 15? Than, some thought they could gain an even better edge by selling on April 1, etc. etc.
Is there seasonality to markets? Probably yes. Tax deadlines may play a part. How to profit from the seasonality? That’s where it gets dicey.
We all have different approaches. To each his own. If doing something a certain way has worked for you over time (per Ol’Skeet) I’d be the last to say change it. Whatever floats your boat!

FYI: After watching investors flee to index funds, assets are flowing back to American Funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-active-fund-giant-wins-back-some-investors-1507514940?tesla=y

FYI: The latest target-date funds focus on the task of managing a nest egg once retirement has started, including RMDs. Will they catch on?
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-target-date-funds-are-geared-for-withdrawal-time-1507515120?tesla=y

Hello,
There are a lot of spins investors can pull form the Sell In May strategy.
I have found, as a retail investor, that the strategy does not work every year; but, for me, it has worked more times than not. In addition, I have found it to be a good time to rebalance thus maintaing neutral positions within my asset allocation. This past May I rebalanced (calendar based) and reduced equities back to what my barometer and equity weighting matrix was calling for, within my asset allocation, and instead of moving to cash or bonds I moved to hybrid funds thus raising my allocation in hybrids.
Since, I am now retired I plan to keep raising my allocation to hybrid funds until they make up about 50% of my overall portfolio. May seems like a good time for me to do this (calendar based). And, since equities have had a good run through the summer and are now richly priced (from my perspective) I plan to just sit this fall and not increase my equity allocation. If equities continue to have their upward run (as I anticipate) come May I'll do another rebalance (calendar based). However, should there be a decent pullback, within equities (three to five possibly seven percent range), I will be putting a little cash to work and raise my equity allocation (another type of rebalance, market based). I call this throttling my asset allocation based upon market movement.
In comparing my current investment posture to a strategy found in baseball that is designed to advance the runners ... it's time to play some small ball. From my perspective, it is not a time, for me, to be overly aggressive for more reasons than one.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

Hi Guys,
Being an "aimer" is very common. We all have goals. The challenge is how realistic those goals are. What are the odds of achieving those goals? Given market uncertainties, a 100% success goal is very bushy-tailed. But it is achievable if an investor is flexible to changing circumstances.
An early step in that process is to identify the likely odds of success. Monte Carlo simulators provide one useful tool to make those estimates. That tool not only yields the odds for success, but also makes estimates of end wealth, and a timeline for the portfolio failures. If those failure times are well beyond likely life expectancy, the failures are far less significant for planning purposes.
I well understand why only a 95% portfolio survival projection would be troublesome for some folks. It was for me. However, once that estimate is known, an investor could think about adjusting his withdrawal plan to alleviate that possibility.
When planning my retirement, I programmed my own version of a Monte Carlo code. I frequently calculated portfolio survival likelihoods in the mid-90% ranges. What to do? To improve that survival rate, I modified the code to reduce drawdowns by an input value (like 10%) if annual market returns were negative for some specified years. Withdrawals were increased once the markets turned positive in the simulations.
I explored many such portfolio survival issues by using my easily modified Monte Carlo code. Portfolio survival rates of very near 100% could be projected when very modest withdrawal rate flexibility was allowed. Like in so many other life situations, flexibility is a winning strategy.
My Monte Carlo calculations identified the frequency of shortfalls, the magnitudes of any shortfalls, and the timeframe of those shortfalls. These were all useful inputs for my retirement decision. The very modest adjustments needed to alleviate that unacceptable outcome gave great comfort. These additional Monte Carlo simulations cemented my retirement decision.
I believe (alternately, IMHO if you dislike "I believe") that Monte Carlo simulations would help many MFOers when considering their retirement decision.
Thanks for the Kitces reference. Be aware that he has a vested interest in the subject matter of that referenced article. He closes his piece with the following declaration:
"Michael Kitces has a financial interest in the US distribution of the Timeline app."
I have no such vested interest in Monte Carlo codes. I merely advocate that they be included as one tool to support investment decisions. They permit easy multiple sensitivity analyses. Of course, they depend on good input data ranges. They do not stand alone.
Best Wishes

I always wonder what the practical effect of such fine distinction-making is.
'For the particular kind of [prostate, breast] cancer you have, the new data show that watchful waiting outcomes are as good in terms of mortality and life quality as treatment, often better, and the number needed to treat is yada yada. Discuss with your doctor whether treatment or monitoring is right for you.'
'Return-sequence risk is always significant and badly down years at the start of your retirement can be deleterious to all of your planning. Discuss with your adviser the consequences of not planning yada yada ...'
And then what? What is the discussion? What can it change besides (dis)comfort level and moves toward drastic preventive actions? How wise is it to have 'just get rid of it' surgery or go to all laddered CDs? In the worst case, plenty wise. So is the discussion necessarily education in likelihood of worst cases?

Some of it certainly is education about worst case probabilities. There's a general belief that outcomes are better if treatment is more aggressive. Sometimes that's true, often it's not, especially given possibilities of false positives (not ill when tests say otherwise).
For example, mammograms are not too reliable with dense breast tissue. Here's a page from the American Cancer Society suggesting in that case you talk with your doctor, because on the one hand you might want to also have an MRI. But it also says that MRIs produce false positives leading to more tests and biopsies (which have their own risks).
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/screening-tests-and-early-detection/mammograms/breast-density-and-your-mammogram-report.html
Similarly, PSA tests are not especially reliable and can lead to biopsies with risks.
A good part of the conversation can simply be an exploration of what's really important to you. In some other thread was a link to an article on how the usual financial planning questions are not helpful, e.g. "would you risk a 20% loss if 2/3 of the time you'd gain 15%?" People don't know what they want or how they'd react if actually (not hypothetically) faced with a 20% loss.
So IMHO talking with a planner at length about what really concerns you and discussing the cost/benefits of different risk mitigators (e.g. immediate annuities, long term care insurance, greater cash allocations, etc.) is a good use of time.
Different people place different values on a given outcome. Worse, most people don't even have a clear idea of how they value each possible outcome.
At one end of the spectrum you have women who will have radical mastectomies because they have a genetic risk of cancer. They choose life, regardless of its quality, over all else. At the other end of the spectrum, you have men who will decline prostate cancer treatment even when faced with certain death, rather than assume any risk of impotence due to treatment.
There are real people like that. I think I can appreciate their perspectives even if I don't agree with them.
Personally, I don't want to go broke, period. In that financial sense, I take an extreme position. A magic number of, say 95% chance of success tells me nothing. I need to know what the 5% of paths look like. Then I can explore possible followup actions that would increase success to 100%.
Likewise with that doctor talk. It's difficult to follow radiation therapy with surgery if the radiation is unsuccessful, while the reverse is much easier. That's a consideration in selecting choice of treatment, if one is willing to live with the much higher likelihood of a degraded quality of life due to multiple therapies.
Knowing not only the odds but the paths of outcomes enables you to plan for dealing with possible failures. And for not doing something just because the expert, whether physician or advisor, felt it was best in his not so humble opinion.

"We have morphed from an agricultural dominated economy to an industrial powerhouse. ... For most of the limited analyses that I do, I favor data from after WW II. I recognize the shortfall in numbers that that decision introduces, but I believe these data are more relevant."
There you have it - faith-based investing. You acknowledge that that times change (so that just perhaps the "mean" in mean reversion also changes), but you're stuck in a post WW II industrial past. Maybe that's because that's roughly the period spanning your lifetime, or at least that part of your lifetime when you were aware of your surroundings.
Daniel Bell coined the term post-industrial society all the way back in 1973. The US has moved well beyond the industrial age. It's a service economy now, where fewer people work in industry (even as output increases), just as fewer people work in your agrarian sector even as output increases.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-jsamuelson-myths-of-post-industrial-america/2013/04/07/775d1062-9fb2-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_story.htm
See ag commodity by commodity production graphs (1960 - present) here:
https://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=us&commodity=milled-rice&graph=production
For earlier data (1900 to 1950), one can wade through this doc:Changes in Agriculture 1900-1950
The decade after WW II was economically unique, as the US was essentially the last economy left standing. Rather than helping to inform investment decisions in today's economy, an argument can be made that that period is no more relevant than the Roaring Twenties.
Geopolitics is another matter. There, WW II is an important starting point. That's when Pax Americana began. But for "the limited analyses that [you] do", this doesn't come into play.

FYI: Studies have consistently shown that dividend-paying stocks tend to outperform their non-dividend paying counterparts over time. From 1930 to 2015, roughly 43% of the S&P 500’s total return came from dividends.
Companies with long histories of paying and growing their dividends demonstrate a financial strength and consistency that makes them ideal investments for most portfolios. Investors who choose funds that target these dividend growth stocks can generate strong risk-adjusted returns over the long term.
If you’re an investor looking to generate income or take advantage of a strategy with a long-term track record of success, consider adding one of these funds to your portfolio. In case you are wondering whether mutual funds are right for you, you should read why mutual funds, in general, should be part of your portfolio
Regards,
Ted
http://mutualfunds.com/news/2015/12/10/the-top-mutual-funds-for-dividend-growth/?utm_source=MutualFunds.com&utm_campaign=bd2cebe35d-Dispatch_Weekend_Engage_09_30_2017&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_83e106a88d-bd2cebe35d-290921629

There are now nine equity funds at least 10 years old through September that have never incurred a negative return over any 3-year rolling period. There were only five last month. The four new funds just turned 10! They are Boston Trust Midcap Fund (BTMFX), Delaware Healthcare Fund Inst (DLHIX), Prospector Capital Appreciation Fund (PCAFX), and Prospector Opportunity Fund (POPFX).
Four of the nine are MFO Great Owls, and David profiled PCAFX in 2011. He gave it a thumbs-up.
Here's an update of the complete list published in this month's commentary (click image to enlarge):

Equities appeared to be propelled by a pair of key trends: stronger year-on-year earnings growth at the corporate level, plus evidence of synchronized global GDP growth for the first time in several years. The latter trend suggests that companies could sustain or even accelerate their profitability in the coming quarters.
Projected year-on-year U.S. earnings growth rate for 3Q is in the high single digits, and it’s even higher in overseas stock markets. This is one of the key reasons why we favor international developed and emerging markets
We are underweight U.S. large cap and small cap stocks, primarily based on relative valuation metrics.
We are overweight non-U.S. developed market equities, emerging market equities, high-yield bonds and long-dated Treasuries. Emerging market stocks have been among the best-performing asset classes in 2017, and we think they remain an appealing investment opportunity based on valuation and earnings growth potential. Profitability is also on the upswing in developed markets as GDP growth improves. High yield is benefiting from very low default rates, while expectations of a slow-moving Fed buoys long Treasuries.

Market-Commentary