@Gary: MarketWatch, Barron's along with WSJ are owned by Dow Jones. However, you still go to the head of the class, but suggest you link the printer friendy format whenever possible.
Regards,
Ted :)
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-social-security-proposal-could-be-something-to-get-excited-about-2019-02-26/print

It's in marketwach - You can avoid Barrons pay wall crap. Dpnt know why they hijacked this - must be a slow day!
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-social-security-proposal-could-be-something-to-get-excited-about-2019-02-26?mod=article_inline

By keeping the Investor shares around, and by using those Investor shares in VTTVX, Vanguard is able to collect an extra 0.11% in fees while claiming to have a 0% management fee on VTTVX. This is deceptive.

But Vanguard doesn't claim this at all. On their fund page for VTTVX, they clearly report an expense ratio of 0.13%, which includes the fees of the underlying funds. Nowhere do they claim that they have a 0% fee. Anyone can plainly see that the "Target Retirement" funds like VTTVX are more expensive than the plain index funds -- no deception here.

FYI: Do you ever get excited by policy proposals to address the Social Security funding shortfall?
You might think that anyone who does needs to get a life. In fact, however, many retirees and soon-to-retirees snap to attention when legislation is introduced to address the Social Security system’s actuarial deficit. The system is currently slated to run out of money in 2034.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-social-security-proposal-thats-worth-getting-excited-about-51551614400?mod=djem_b_Weekly barrons_daily_newsletter

Ahhh, mid 40's. I was there once.

...when I hit retirement I still expect to still be practically all-in on equities as I am now in my mid-40s. While I won't be 'diversified' across so-called "asset classes" I will be 'diversified' by my own comfort levels,

@rforno , I wouldn't recommend that in retirement without a cash bucket (another asset class), unless you don't need to withdraw from your savings. Withdrawing from a full-in equity portfolio during a bear market could be detrimental to your savings, especially if that bear market is at the start of retirement. So if you had that cash bucket, 1, 3, 5 years, whatever your comfort level is, I think 100% equity for the remaining portfolio is perfectly fine for a risk taker like yourself. Probably do better than most.

And no, I don't care about LC/MC/SC G/B/V designations

I don't disagree with you on this at all, but you know these are not asset classes.

Those who criticize others for having too many funds ignore a common reality. Many investors have different accounts with different funds available to invest in, making it virtually impossible to simplify beyond a certain point. My wife and I both have separate 401Ks, a necessity, which do not have balanced or target funds as options. We both have separate Rollover and Roth IRAs, as well as a joint investment account. That means that we have 7 different accounts with a range of investment options. We have simplified to a degree, but I’m not willing to roll over our 401Ks to our IRAs because the 401Ks have advantages such as stable value funds, automatic rebalancing and very low cost index funds.

It sounds like what @Investor is thinking of is index linked annuities. Just one of many ways of wrapping the same structured product. See also structured notes, equity linked CDs.
Conceptually there's nothing wrong with these, if their risk reward profile is what you're looking for. The basic principal protected variant is essentially just a combo of a zero coupon bond that has a maturity value equal to your investment, and index options bought by whatever is left over after buying the zero.
For details, see Equity Linked Notes, an Introduction (Pay no attention to the fact that this was published by Lehman Bros. :-))
The problem is more with the way these are sold. First, while these come in many forms, the one that's pushed is the highest cost one, the VA. Second and more generally, the fee institutions extract for the relatively simple bundling process is often too high.
Getting back to insured asset allocation - this appears to be an approach to asset allocation as others have described. Like @hank, I did a quick search. It seems hard to find "first tier" sites discussing this.
The little bit that I've seen seems to suggest that this strategy may lock you into an all cash portfolio. The closer your portfolio comes to your minimum acceptable value, the more you're supposed to shift into cash.
The example given here has a $1M and an $800K floor to protect. The portfolio value is thus $200K above the floor. Based on that "excess", a stock/cash allocation is calculated.
The closer you fall toward the floor, the smaller the excess is and thus the less you allocate to equity. This can continue until you get so close to your floor that you've got virtually everything in cash (which has grown all the way to $800K in the example). At this point you've got no equity, no way to dig yourself out of the hole. All you're guaranteed is that you won't fall further.
A variant of Zeno's paradox. You may never reach 100% cash, but you'll get so close that the difference (excess) won't really matter.

I used to think that Target Date funds were not pretty good investments. But they have improved and costs have come down significantly. I think most investors will do just fine with a low cost target date fund. People have better things to do with their lives than watch their investments. We do it because it is our hobby in a way.
When I changed jobs (while being away from MFO), I have selected Target Date fund for my 401k investments at the new company. Initially I was thinking well I have no monies in the new account, when it grows up sufficiently I will do allocation myself, besides I am too busy with new job and a few other personal things in my life. I think it is a decent investment for most people and I would even claim that "most people" probably includes many of us here.
Do you want a bit more diversification than target date funds add a bit more small cap 5% and small cap international 5% (or 10% global small cap). Step up the target date fund to next higher bond allocation to sooth the extra volatility due to small cap and you are pretty good to go.

Well, maybe it is one of those cosmic coincidences, but Western Asset (a Legg Mason subsidiary) recently introduced a very similarly named ETF, Western Asset Short Duration Income ETF.
With an inception date of 02-07-2019 and a 29 bp ER:

https://www.etf.com/WINC
https://www.leggmason.com/en-us/products/exchange-traded-funds/western-asset-short-duration-income-etf.html
https://www.leggmason.com/en-us/products/mutual-funds/western-asset-short-term-yield-fund.html
[Sponsored Article] https://www.etf.com/sections/etf-industry-perspective/legg-mason-case-active-short-duration-income

Was the closing fund [LGSYX, et al.] a placeholder for the ETF? Or simply a 'hedge', in case the rollout for the ETF was delayed? Hmmm....
FUND (56 bp ER)
Seeks to generate current income and a low sensitivity to interest rate volatility via an actively managed fixed income strategy focused on U.S. dollar-denominated investment grade securities...
Total portfolio effective duration is expected to be one year or less while average effective maturity is expected to be 18 months or less. In any event, average effective maturity will be three years or less.
ETF (29 bp ER)
The Western Asset Short Duration Income ETF is an actively managed, low duration (0-3 years) fixed income strategy that seeks current income via a diversified portfolio with an emphasis on lower interest rate sensitivity, higher credit quality and active credit selection.
Low Duration. An effective average duration target of 3 years or less.

SAI: "As of October 31, 2018, Legg Mason, Inc., 100 International Drive, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, owned of record 25% or more of Short Term Yield Fund’s outstanding shares."
Whitehurst is just the contact (c/o) name given for Legg Mason here.
That, plus the fact that Western Assets is a Legg Mason line of funds, suggest that Legg Mason has been using this fund internally simply as a place to hold cash (or to invest easily in ultra-short bonds, take your pick).
There are lots of fund families that do things like that, though I'm not going to go looking for them and checking on how they list their principal owners.

I hadn’t heard this term before. A bit hard running it down, but did come across an Investopedia article that discusses it as one allocation approach.
https://www.investopedia.com/investing/6-asset-allocation-strategies-work/
Each will have his / her own take on this. I get the general drift that the approach is designed to cut losses. But it runs contrary to everything I know and feel about investing. Would you sell your home if its assessed value fell below a certain level? How about the vacant lot in the neighborhood you bought for spec? Or the antique auto you own and admire?
When I invest in funds I’m investing in the underlying assets (companies, commodities, gold, infrastructure, secured debt, etc.). I expect these will vary in value over the years (as a home might). But if I believe it’s worthwhile owning those underlying assets, than why would I sell them just because their market value dropped?
I remain optimistic that over the longer term (10+ years) a well diversified portfolio that has exposure to many types of investments (read: not 100% invested in VFINX or TRBCX) will keep me at least on pace with inflation - and probably somewhat ahead of it. Generally, I’d rather own “things” than pieces of paper with $$ signs printed on them.
—
@DavidV - I have not addressed the issue of age (which you mention). Your question seemed to be more about a specific allocation strategy. I’m aware 2 or 3 prominent board members mentioned during the past year that they were moving almost entirely to cash. The reasons seemed to be related primarily to age. IMHO that’s an entirely separate decision that everyone with the help of family and friends needs to make at some point. Call it an “allocation strategy” if you like. Whatever works. :)
(I’m not a qualified financial advisor.)

@msf great response.... I do invest in many muni bonds mostly universities airport sprt complexes hospitals cities infrastructure etc.. I also buy good grade securities big companies like t-mobile Seagate att boa Merrill Lynch hcahealthcare macys Ford gm united airlines chevron Corp bonds... Due diligence reasearch and ready to sell at any given moments if you smell any blood in water... Very lucky for me no defaults for me over the past 8 9 yrs but you will never know...although many bonds called and you get a lesser rewards if they are called... Make suryou read tones stuff articles research about bonds before buying before buying these bonds... Like mf investments spread them out and don't put all your eggs in one basket.. Put in many baskets and buy multiple in different vehicles differently structures as and investment vehicles and utilities...
Lucky for me fid not pull trigger for Pg&e or peutoruco after the storms hurricane otherwise may face another bankruptcy loss capital incomes (ytm was 12-15% too high) ... If the yieare too high and looks too good bonds may not be to good and I tried stay away

Nothing wrong with a single fund if it has a diversified portfolio, like a Retirement fund. This one does not. Not even close. I don't think GMO ever suggested a portfolio of 1/2 international and 1/2 domestic and nothing else.
@STB65, have you used Portfolio Visualizer? If not, try it. Build a portfolio of 5-10-50 funds and another portfolio with one fund, a TRP retirement fund. Let that guide you.

Hi, hmgodwin.
The Lipper database. Following your question, I checked Morningstar and found an odd report (cash= 37% long - 24% short, net 13% currently) and the normal fund material doesn't disclose it. I've written to Mike Roos at Artisan to see if he can help.
More soon,
David

On the Thematic main page, under data and statistics, if one scrolls to the very bottom it says that the fund has cash and cash equivalents of 5.4%. That number is of the end of January. The 4th quarter fact sheet states -4.6% cash and cash equivalents.

On Fidelity Women's Leadership: the idea of favoring teams with more diversity senior leadership teams actually makes financial sense. "There's substantial evidence that gender diversity at the management level enhances a company's performance" (CNBC, 2018). The three gender-screened funds that I know of (Pax, Glenmede and a SPDR) all have above-average returns.
The problem is pinning down exactly why that's the case since knowing how gender diversity contributes to the bottom line helps understand what sorts of things to screen for. So my skepticism is more aimed at "any one woman in 'senior leadership' is good enough for us" as a screening criterion.
David

Hi, hmgodwin.
The Lipper database. Following your question, I checked Morningstar and found an odd report (cash= 37% long - 24% short, net 13% currently) and the normal fund material doesn't disclose it. I've written to Mike Roos at Artisan to see if he can help.
More soon,
David

The enthusiasm of many people for individual bonds, especially regarding safety, continues to fascinate.
Ted "want[s] a reasonable risk free portfolio." Yet the individual bond portion of his portfolio contains one solitary bond. a junk bond (Moody's B3) at that.
There's no question that one can hold junk in a lower risk portfolio, if one adequately diversifies. What I've read suggests that to diversify a collection of taxable bonds one should start with at least $100K (see, e.g. this Money column or this Balance piece advising six-figure portfolios). That's so that you can hold more than a small smattering of bonds.
In contrast to Ted's single bond, johnN diversifies his bond portfolio:"I am 45 yo but have about 20 or 25 % of portfolios in private corp bonds." Still his apparent support for Ted's particular bond is puzzling: "Ted gave a great example hzt Corp grading is bad but the cusip has many etf and funds holding the Corp bond."
John's comfort zone is primarily investment grade. "I usually buy bbb- bonds or higher (sometimes bb+ too)". Ted's bond, rated b- (B3) is not only below investment grade, it is significantly below John's bb+ threshold for junk bond dabbling. This is supposed to be mitigated by setting email alerts on "hertz bankruptcy", thus enabling him to deal with "anything fishy".
But this hope is undercut by his observation that most of these HTZ bonds are owned by etfs and funds. Those funds are run by professionals who have faster access than email to information, better tools, and whose sole job it is to monitor securities. An individual investor is not going to outrace them should the bond value collapse.
Often when a bond defaults, bondholders get back a good chunk of their investment. But with HTZ, even a small amount of diligent research reveals something different. Should the company go into bankruptcy or be unable to meet its obligations, bond holders here may not recover a dime.
From the latest (FY 2018) 10K: "Substantially all of our consolidated assets secure certain of our outstanding indebtedness, which could materially adversely affect our debt and equity holders and our business."
If you're just starting out investing in individual bonds, here's a worthwhile column
entitled The Harsh Realities of Individual Bond Investing
http://rpgplanner.com/individual-bonds/
The author's recommended starting portfolio size is seven figures. That is probably much higher than necessary for diversification, but he's also addressing spread. I've done okay investing in individual munis, but I never sell because the spread. I'm not categorically against investing in individual bonds. You just need to really understand what you're getting into.

They're two different share classes of the same fund. That means they both represent ownership of the same underlying portfolio (fund). It's just that they're sold to different types of investors and they have different annual expenses (expense ratios).
VBMFX costs 0.15%/year (expense ratio, or ER), while VBTIX's expense ratio is 0.04%. Neither share class is open to retail investors.
You could buy VBTLX shares, with a $3K minimum investment and a 0.05% expense ratio. You could also buy the same fund through a brokerage by purchasing BND (an ETF share class of the same fund) with an expense ratio scheduled to drop to 0.035% (according to Barron's).

Hi @MikeM:
Thanks for making comment.
It all boils down to managing risk. The type of fund you reference was not around back in the 80's when I began to invest family money via the sleeve system. With this, I've kept my system in place. And, yes I enjoy it. Plus, I beleive that it puts more coins in my pocket over a more simple strategy. And, agreed ... it is probally not suited for the average retail investor. However, in my system if a fund falters there are others within the sleeve that can continue to propel the sleeve. Thus it diversifies manager, strategy and fund risk and spreads it over many.
My high school buddy who by profession was a successful engineer today uses one bond fund and one equity fund and rebalances between a 40%/60% allocation based upon his read of the markets. At times, his performance leads mine and at time mine leads his. He has to sell securites to meet his withdrawal distribution needs while I do not as my portfolio generates the necessary income to meet distribution needs plus leaving some for future investment purposes. Both portfolio's are about the same size and distributions needs are about the same. His portfolio has a yield of about 2.1% while mine is about 3.2% plus both portfolios produce fund capital gain distributions which I take in cash and which he reinvest all fund distributions. I have suggested, to him, that he take all fund distributions in cash and stop the automatic reinvestment process since he is now in the distribution phase of investing.
It all boils down to what works best for each of us as being the best route for each one of us to travel.
I wish you continued "Good Investing" in the years to come.
Skeet

“The consolidated master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank savings accounts.”
- That’s a lot of accounts. Since you view them as a “consolidated master portfolio”, what you share with the board about allocations pertains to the overall big picture I would assume. Provided you’re comfortable with your health savings account having the same market risk as your retirement accounts, etc. that looks workable.
- I suspect there may be limitations within some of those different accounts as to which funds you may own. That would tend to increase your total number of funds.
- Since these accounts comprise a consolidated portfolio, it would seem impossible to maintain each of those separate accounts with the same proportion of assets at all times. The only way to do that would be to sell / buy equal percentages for each of the different accounts every time your allocation changes.
- Bank accounts should not increase the number of funds held. With my insured bank or credit union accounts I simply combine them all together under one category as “cash”. While they affect the allocation, they don’t contribute to the number of funds owned.
Thanks for the response and additional insights Ol’Skeet.
My own portfolio: 4 converted Roths, 1 Traditional IRA, and non-sheltered cash holdings. For simplicity I treat the various accounts as one “ball of wax”. I might try to position the Roths a bit differently - but generally don’t bother to keep them separate for allocation purposes. In a couple instances I hold the same fund in both a Traditional and Roth.