Also NTF at E*TRADE with the same $100 minimum, institutional class not available, which I only checked because sometimes the minimum is a lot lower than published and I'd rather pay a transaction fee than the 12b-1.

@LLJB thanks again for letting us know about E*Trade. I am told E*Trade is setting up KCM Macro Trends Institutional (KCMIX) this week and will be available by Monday at the latest for purchases.

Thanks @Ted,
If you ever have an opportunity to read or listen to a Dan Fuss Interview, do so. Like Bogle, Fuss is a grandfather like figure that is both engagingly dry and full of financial wisdom.
From @Ted's article on owning bonds in today's market:

“I do know from my 59 years of experience, when the ice was very thin, it’s always good to be very cautious,” he said. “You can skate around the edges but you can’t go out to the middle.”

and,

“I‘m not trying to be an ‘end of the world person’ here, but it is a possibility,” he said. “It used to be one percent, now it’s a 15 or 20 percent possibility. Would you get on an airplane if there was a 15 percent risk? And that’s a good way to ask a person about risk,” he said.

Maybe investor confirmation bias, but I sold my "middle of the pond" position in AGDYX about a month ago. His concerns about a lack of buyer of bonds and a higher risk of inflation paired with do nothing politicians is what you pay a bond manager to worry about. Bond index funds provide none of this risk management.
Wish the article dug a little deeper into Dan Fuss and his bond choices over the next part of the market cycle.

FYI: Dan Fuss, one of the world’s longest-serving fund managers, said his flagship bond fund has cut exposure to high-yield corporate bonds and raised the quality of its holdings, warning that the U.S. bond market is more vulnerable to a sell-off now than at any time since the financial market rout of 1974.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-markets-loomissayles/u-s-bonds-look-most-vulnerable-in-four-decades-loomis-sayles-fuss-idUSL3N1NE2T3

FYI: While stranger things have happened, this year’s big winners and the factor exposures that drove their returns were certainly atypical.
Regards,
Ted
http://markovprocesses.com/blog/2017/11/measuring-the-ivy-2017-a-year-in-the-upside-down-for-endowment-returns/

ArrowPoint is now ArrowMark (I believe over trademark infringement) and has always been Meridian Funds. The MFO Scorecard has been updated accordingly.
Here's summary (OSC means Oldest Share Class, ASC means All Share Classes), click on image to enlarge:

Here are the some performance metrics from the MultiSearch screener for the four Meridian funds since inception (click image to enlarge):

David profiled its newest fund, Meridian Small Cap Growth (MISGX), back in 2014 shortly after it launched. It's delivered handsomely. Here's screenshot of MFO Dashboard (click image to enlarge):

As hard rules, they're inconsistent. Most people aren't going to max out their work retirement plans and IRAs with "just" 20% savings.
To max out $18K (401k) + $5500 (IRA) while saving 20% would require an income of at least $117,500. Even more if you're over 50, or have a 457(b) plan that lets you save another $18K on top of your 403(b).
On the other hand, if you are earning that much, there are tax advantages to investing (in limited amounts) in your company stock (an individual security). I've done that through ESPP and ESOP plans.
As davidrmoran wrote, flexibility is the key. I also agree with Crash, that the last item (the one that expands the 3x5 card to a 4x6 card) makes it worth splurging on the larger index card.

1-month returns:
PREMX -1.13%
FNMIX -0.82%
TGINX -0.49%
Fund Manager at PREMX (Michael Cornelius) made a reasonable case in a recent M* article about continuing to own Venezuela. I expect that piece of the portfolio is mostly responsible for the current, short-term losses. And I don't think the scenario going forward is favorable. I suspect PREMX owns more in Ven. that the other two I listed, above. Just a guess. And the political situation in Lebanon doesn't help PREMX, either. It's not the end of the world, but it's not pleasant. Less pleasant for the now former Prime Minister of Lebanon, too!

I do notice that FNMIX (EM bonds, the favored one by some folks here at MFO) is behaving the same way as PREMX. I have not looked further than that. Those two seem to run neck-and-neck, every time I bother to compare them. You own MAINX. Good choice! I'm babysitting some money for someone else, and a small portion of their stuff is in MAINX. I'm 13.6% of portf. in PREMX, and 10.6% in PRSNX. The combined monthly divs. from the two of them is delicious. Still re-investing it all.

The fall has been precipitous, in bond-terms--- though as yet short-lived. PREMX is particularly vulnerable, but it's not as if I did not know that, beforehand. I have benefited greatly from PREMX monthly income, since I originally bought it in 2010. The fund owns a big slug in Venezuela, which is defaulting. And I note a tranche in Lebanon, where the Prime Minister ran away to Saudi Arabia, then announced his resignation. He fears for his life. His father was assassinated while serving as PM in Lebanon in 2005, too! Add a stronger dollar lately (high-point yesterday, over the past 4 months. But PREMX is mostly, though not exclusively, in dollar-bonds.)
I own quite a bit in PRSNX, too. (Multi-asset global bonds.) It is steady. So steady, it's almost making me impatient. Shall I sell some PRSNX and buy PREMX on this dip? I don't bet that the PREMX downtrend is over, yet, though.

Came across this old useful index card. For most (all?) investors, this is an easy and useful advice to follow.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/09/16/this-4x6-index-card-has-all-the-financial-advice-youll-ever-need/

FYI: You know what we need? A FANG product.
And we are going to get one on Wednesday, when the Intercontinental Exchange, the parent of the New York Stock Exchange, introduces NYSE FANG-plus index futures under the symbol NYFANG.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/07/one-exchanges-latest-brainstorm-fang-index-futures.html

Pretty good story. Turns out he counted the assets in his funds as his own personal assets and is being sued by former employees for keeping their portion of fund profits:
https://forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/11/07/the-case-of-wilbur-ross-phantom-2-billion/#1ec984d67515

All ratings have been updated on MFO Premium site, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Correlation, Rolling Averages, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, and Fund Family Scorecard.

Good column (and not pay-walled). The bright spots, such as they are, in his projections are that although he doesn't expect the market to beat inflation in the next several years, he's also not expecting a crash near term. Also, over the longer term (two decades) he expects stocks to beat inflation by 2.8%.
I agree with Lewis (and Grantham) that workers are being treated worse than in "days of yore". However, I think Grantham's view of pension funds in the past is a bit on the rosy side. Pensions were used to lock in employees (30 year requirement to benefit), used as an excuse for paying lower wages, used to lavish benefits on management, perennially underfunded, and often bankrupt (think Studebaker). ERISA protections didn't come along until 1974, and by 1980 you had 401(k)s appearing.
NYTimes Magazine article 2005: The End of Pensions.

In September 2015 most real estate funds were badly damaged. I threw a little at OREAX (Oppenheimer) and caught a good bounce over the next 6 -12 months. But since the bounce ended, the fund hasn’t moved much either way (since about mid 2016). Still have it. Seems very much to move with interest rates - rising when rates are expected to fall and falling when they appear likely to rise. Rumor or anticipation of rate changes will often cause a reaction. So the Fed Chair nomination recently might have influenced markets. Remember, too, that rates had risen considerably in recent weeks before falling back abruptly in the past week or so.
I also agree with others here that changes in deductibility of mortgage interest would affect values.
These funds vary quite a bit in their approaches. Helps explain why different funds’ returns vary widely over short periods. A given fund may hold office buildings, malls, self-storage facilities, apartment complexes, hotel chains and mobile home park operations - to name a few. I wouldn’t be surprised if some even held mortgage companies and the like for diversity. Don’t have any strong sense about where values will go next. I don’t mind holding a little for diversity. But these funds are very cyclical and subject to pretty substantial trends both on the way up and on the way down.
FWIW - T. Rowe considers real estate a “hard asset” and incorporates a substantial amount in their Real Assets fund (PRAFX).
Are real estate funds a bargain? Don’t know about that. Not seeing anything that looks terribly beaten up out there.

There are parts I agree with, and parts where I see things differently.
I agree that the intent was likely, at least in part, to prevent gaming the system. I make multiple/excess conversions in a year. Then after I see how each investment has done and how much I need to roll back to stay within a tax bracket, I select which investments and how much of each to undo. I'm sure there are others here who do something similar.
All perfectly legal, and all gaming the system. Heads I win, tails the IRS loses.
A simplified version of this is: if the market goes up, keep the conversion. If the market goes down, back it all out. Ed Slott doesn't see this as gaming. I disagree. Still, heads I win, tails the IRS loses.
Ed Slott thinks that if this provision passes, you won't be able to undo your 2017 conversions after December 31, 2017. I read the proposal differently. He's certainly being more conservative, and that's probably good, especially for an advisor.
What the proposed legislation says is: "EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
this section [removing the ability to recharacterize] shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017."
I take that as meaning that you will not be able to recharacterize anything for tax year 2018. Recharacterizing your 2017 conversions, whenever it is done, applies to tax year 2017.
As supporting evidence, I point to the wording in the current code (which would be deleted):

if, on or before the due date for any taxable year, a taxpayer transfers in a trustee-to-trustee transfer any contribution to an individual retirement plan made during such taxable year from such plan to any other individual retirement plan, such contribution shall be treated as having been made to the transferee plan

A bit of a mouthful, but basically saying that if you undo your tax year 2017 Roth conversion by Oct 15, 2018, it's treated as if you'd just moved the money from your traditional IRA back into a traditional IRA in tax year 2017.
Of course this isn't advice, Ed could be right, or the law might not be changed at all.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Tax professionals are ringing alarm bells that a House proposal unveiled last week deserves financial advisers' attention. Should the measure become law, taxpayers who decided to convert a Roth IRA to a traditional, or pre-tax, individual retirement account, would no longer be allowed to elect to change it back to a Roth within a certain time frame. And that means advisers should be checking in on clients about Roths before the start of 2018, said Ed Slott, founder of Ed Slott's Elite IRA Advisor Group in a conversation with InvestmentNews reporter Greg Iacurci.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=AH8BWtDnA8y3jwTe5qeAAQ&q=Ed+Slott+on+Roth+IRA+conversions+becoming+permanent&oq=Ed+Slott+on+Roth+IRA+conversions+becoming+permanent&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1.4590.4590.0.7188.3.2.0.0.0.0.93.93.1.2.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..1.2.178.6..35i39k1.85.2pswNHS_oXI

FYI: (This is a follow-up article.)
With the S&P 500 up more than 15% this year, it may be time for a reality check. To that end, we spoke with Jeremy Grantham, co-founder and chief investment strategist at Boston-based money manager Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co. and a noted spotter of market bubbles.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeremy-grantham-predicted-two-previous-bubbles-and-now-1509937980

FYI: We again asked experts to help us answer readers’ questions about saving for college. This month, it starts with an overarching concern parents have about “529” college-savings plans when thinking about how to pay for school.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-529s-affect-financial-aid-1509937920?tesla=y

Hi @msf
Yes, the Nov.2 date you noted was part of what stuck in my mind when I saw the big bump up in real estate Monday morning (having scanned through the bill in a hasty fashion.....the mortgage area was in the back of my mind, too). This being part of the subject line (the legislation) for this post, as I found nothing else to trigger a big, single day move in U.S. real estate investments. It appears that the real kicker is the proposal below:
Well, perhaps this is/was the kick for real estate.....text indicates holding period changes related to several areas, including real estate partnerships.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/06/top-house-tax-writer-kevin-brady-we-will-put-in-the-two-year-holding-period-on-carried-interest.html
---Multiple links related to Brady and real estate partnerships holding periods. Redundant, of course; but you may find one of interest
https://www.google.com/search?q=kevin+brady+real+estate+partnership+holding+period&oq=kevin+brady+real+estate+partnership+holding+period&aqs=chrome..69i57.25686j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
'Course, all of this is tentative, yes? So, what the proposed changes "gave" to real estate for one day may also quickly disappear. A traders delight.....of which, I am not.