Article by Josh Brown:
"If I only had thirty seconds to teach a young person about asset allocation, I probably wouldn’t bother with anything written. I’d also dispense with any sort of formula, equation or model.
Instead, I’d come armed with just one chart and force my erstwhile pupil to spend the entire half-minute staring at it.
That chart is below, a gem from Professor Jeremy Siegel"

advisoranalyst.com/glablog/2014/08/18/thirty-second-course-on-asset-allocation.html

@Mike: My wife can buy all the VWELX she wants in her 457, through VALIC
Regards,
Ted.

@Ted
;)

Many many thanks to all who responded here!! Not only have you been enlightening and helpful to a newcomer (our DIL) but you just may have acquired a new lurker. This was the spirit of FA, and it seems it is continuing here (minus a few recent acrimonious offerings which are probably better off to just forget).
BTW, the 457 offerings thru her college are TIAA-CREF, VALIC, and ING. Well, at least ING has the old Lex Corp Leaders which might hold some interest, although why a dinosaur with 0% turnover should be charging .5 ER is, well, we know why they're charging it... I think it's back to mutual funds in the 403(b).

I believe VWELX is closed to third party financial intermediaries only. Interested parties can still buy the fund directly through Vanguard. See the link below.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/105563/000093247113005690/ps2102201355x85.htm
Also, the Vanguard web site does not list it as being a "closed" fund.

Always nice to hear about Buffett. I have tremendous respect for him. And I've heard him speak (or read what he said in interviews) just what you reported about intelligence. I think Buffett doesn't realize just how intelligent he is. I think he is way up there, a superbly intelligent person. And his memory seems to be exceptional.
He apparently doesn't see just how smart he is. Every time I have seen him on TV at CNBC or elsewhere, he has total command of his subject, details, facts, etc.
MJG, thanks for posting. I like hearing about Munger too, but not nearly as much as Buffett. On a side note, I just read his 2013 Letter to Shareholders. I think it is a real gem. He gives extremely important and practical investment advice there, and lots of it.
He did catch some flack for saying that in his will, he has left instructions to the trustee to put 90% of his wife's portfolio in the S&P 500 index fund, and 10% in short term government bonds

Hi Guys,
Recently, Farnam Street’s Shane Parrish has been revisiting interviews that Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger granted over the last few years. Each review offers financial wisdom and investing gems.
Here is a Link to a current release that addresses the question “What makes Warren Buffett a great investor? Is it the intelligence or the discipline?”:
http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2014/08/what-makes-warren-buffett-a-great-investor/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed
As always, Buffett is very succinct in his assessments. For example, here is a brief but pithy excerpt: “But to win at this game, and most people can’t, you need discipline to form your own opinions and the right temperament, which is more important than IQ.”
It’s heartening that Buffett downgrades the importance of IQ in the investment process. You need not be brilliant to succeed.
But take note of the qualifier that the Wizard of Omaha slipped into his statement: “…..to win at this game, and most people can’t……”. He doesn’t have confidence in the investment abilities of the average investor. That’s sad, but consistent with his recent quotes.
I suspect that Mr. Buffett is not very conversant with IQ scores. Note in his opening statements how he introduced trading off an IQ score of 160 as follows: “If you’ve got 160 IQ, sell 30 points to somebody else because you won’t need it in investing. What you do need is the right temperament.” Not many of us have IQs in the elevated and rare atmosphere.
For most IQ tests, the average score is set at the 100 level. The actual scores are typically Bell shaped so a Normal statistical distribution adequately models the data. The standard deviation for the IQ scores is 15.
This means that 68% of the scores fall between 85 and 115 (one standard deviation), and that 95% of the scores register between 70 and 130 (two standard deviations). A score of 160 (four standard deviations) is reserved for a select few in our population (much less than 0.1%). Any person scoring over 160 is considered by experts in the field to be a genius, exceptionally gifted individual. Approximately 1 out of 30,000 folks have IQs above 160. I’m definitely not in that group.
Since the Bell curve is symmetrical, even a relatively low IQ rating of 130, according to the Buffett comparison measure, is achieved by only about 2.5% of the overall population. I really do not believe that Warren Buffett was restricting his comments to that elite cadre. Investing is not that demanding. Buffett just doesn’t understand the IQ stats or how they’re computed. That’s unlike him, but rare exceptions always exist.
Please enjoy the interview. It is rich in investment guidance.
Best Regards.

From Boglehead.org:
"The fund was created in 1985. In 1987 the New York Times noted: [2]
In the past two years, a number of firms have revived the 1960's fund-of-funds approach, in which a money manager invests in a variety of mutual funds, rather than directly in stocks or bonds... The Vanguard Group was one of the first organizations to revive the fund-of-funds concept when it offered its STAR Fund, which invests in shares of Vanguard's other mutual funds.
According to posters in the Bogleheads forum, STAR is an acronym for "Special Tax-Advantaged Retirement," although it was never limited to retirement accounts; it is one of a group of seven Vanguard funds each of which is formally a "portfolio" within a single "trust," an arcane fact of no practical importance"
Another unimportant fact...

STAR in Vanguard STAR is capitalized, is it an acronym for a four word phrase?
It is compared against the STAR composite index:

It is much easier for companies to roll out an ETF than a mutual fund. Both have a lot of regulation, but logistically I have been told on many occasions by ETF sponsors that ETFs are pretty simple to put together once an index has been created for the investment theme.

I'd like to see more active etfs come out. One advantage of them is that it is much cheaper (transaction fee) to purchase an active etf than it is an actively managed mutual fund that is not on the no transaction fee list of a discount brokerage. For example, a $49.95 transaction fee vs. $8 etf fee. Or Bill Gross's Pimco Total Return ETF, with no load on the eft, and a lower expense ratio than the no-load investor shares mutual fund version, for those who don't have access to the Institutional shares version. (Not that anybody is actually buying Bill Gross' fund this year!)
I've read that one reason for the lack of actively managed etfs is that etfs require daily disclosure of the portfolio positions, which active managers don't like to give.
What I'd also like to see more of is exchange traded funds that are just different share classes of the active mutual fund, as Vanguard specializes in. I've read that Vanguard has a patent on that, and until that patent expires, we won't be getting actively managed funds that are just a different share class from other fund companies.

Ivy International Core Equity IVVYX or ICEIX would be my first choice, given John Maxwell's outstanding record since he took over in 2006, but the fund is often not available without a commission, and the I class shares are usually out of reach for retail investors. But there are a good number of other very good international managers. Remember that you are hiring a manager here, not buying a fund. Artisan Intl Value ARTKX is very good, but might also be unavailable depending on where your friend's account is custodied. I really like Federated IVFIX Intl Strategic Value Dividend, and it is on a tear recently now that dividends are back in favor. It is available at most retail fund places. Oakmark (OAKIX) is hard to turn down, too, and it is available in most fund supermarkets. Although I like Matthews, I would hesitate to use their funds as my general international fund option. They really are Asian driven. FMIJX might someday be on my list, but the fund has untested management (maybe 9 managers are too many?). Also only 65% of the fund is currently in international stocks. I would stick with proven management with the funds I suggested above.

Well, those are certainly nice funds.
"Best Balanced Vanguard Mutual Funds – Vanguard Star (VGSTX)"
Vanguard Star is one of the very first mutual funds I ever purchased. I had no idea what mutual fund to purchase, and decided on Star, which was a sort of legendary fund even at that time.
I opened the account with $500.
Have held this fund all this time, and never worried about it.....have never been disappointed.
I think the author needed to include the Vanguard Wellington Fund in the article. If he wanted an article with only 4 funds, he could have removed the Managed Payout Fund, which might be a bit untested, and certainly can't match the others mentioned.

I'd add FMIJX as a candidate. Mostly developed Int, not much EM, but lower volatility for the risk adverse, low expenses and low asset base. I recently chose it as my diversified International fund for what it's worth.
David commented on it a while back. M* gives it 5* if that matters.
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2012/04/fmi-international-fmijx-may-2012/

I'm not saying Ted is wrong. But I would be reluctant to pay higher than par. Then again assuming I were to buy a closed end fund, I would be reluctant to pay a premium over NAV.

A bit off topic, but I would also be reluctant to buy a closed end fund at a premium over NAV. I did it once, and don't believe I'll ever do it again.
I bought the fund at inception, and closed end funds have the cost of bringing the fund to market paid by the buyers at inception, so it sells at a premium to NAV. Was only about 5% over NAV, but something I would be very reluctant to do again.

Since the stated objective here is to increase international exposure, some excellent international funds are:
1. Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund Investor Shares (VGTSX), which is also available as an exchange traded fund, VXUS.
2. Vanguard International Growth, VWIGX
3. Dodge & Cox International Stock, DODFX
4. Harbor International, which comes in both investor shares and institutional shares
You also mentioned the desire to not have much volatility. If that objective is higher on the list, I would suggest considering:
Tweedy, Browne Global Value TBGVX
All in all, the "set it and forget it" no brainer is the Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund, which provides maximum diversification, including 5,400 stocks, with a tiny expense ratio of 0.14% for the exchange traded fund shares. Note that the exchange traded fund shares and the regular mutual fund shares contain exactly the same portfolio and are the same fund, different share classes.
It currently has 14% emerging markets.
This fund can be held for life, and requires no monitoring.

MACSX is a excellent fund. The volatility will be more than say a SP500 fund but over the long haul she will be pleased. As for international exposure, I like 30% or more. I have about 35% exposure in my portfolio.

I would like to make 50/50 for VTSAX/VGHAX ( this 401k amt will be 1/3 of my total portfolio). I am in S&P500 ( for 401K)

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTgzODU5NzE=
Enlarged Graphic; http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=webLV081414.gif&docId=713100&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1063&caption=&id=713103

@NumbersGal: For you information.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/15102/chuck-jaffe-why-tax-inversions-are-bad-for-shareholders#latest

Once again Bob C comes through with solid recommendations based upon ling experience. This man is a gem!
I had forgotten how long Bob has been a pillar of support for both MFO and FundAlarm until I happened to read the "What are these Numbers?" post a few days ago, which contains a historic link to a FundAlarm page from April 2005.
There is Bob, then and now one of the most helpful folks to ever post on MFO or FundAlarm. Some other names, still with us, from the past: Maurice, Ted, David Snowball (of course!), VintageFreak, Mark, rono, and Falcon (now Accipiter). Congrats to all on longevity and minimal, if any, evidence of senility. :-)