Thanks MJG.
Underneath the emotion, I like to think that markets are driven by fundamentals.
And fundamentals are driven by people, ideas/innovation, resources/capital, legal system, etc.
So different times and different places will warrant different medians. The normal changes, like you say.
Folks that have a good sense of such changes likely make good active investors, even if they are only active with allocation.

If you are looking solely at the domestic US market then there would not be much need for a RE fund as the indexes will cover that. The global markets and in particular Asia have done quite well even with govt interference to quell speculation.
The funds have had a good year so far. My fingers are crossed though because at this time last year I was thinking the same thing and in Nov and Dec they gave most of their gains back.
ARYVX gains per M* : YTD= 13.29% , One year = 22.18% , Three year = 13.96%.

FYI:InvescoInvesco Jumps Into MLP Space with New Fund ended the month of August with the launch of the Invesco MLP Fund (ILPAX), an open-end, actively managed alternative mutual fund with a focus on master limited partnerships (MLPs). Capital appreciation is the fund’s primary objective, with current income its secondary goal
Regards,
Ted
http://dailyalts.com/invesco-launches-new-mlp-fund/

FYI: S. stocks eased Monday, as investors took a breather following last week's gains.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 41 points, or 0.2%, to 17096 recently. The S&P 500 index eased 10 points, or 0.5%, to 1998. The Nasdaq Composite Index declined eight points, or 0.2%, to 4575.
Energy companies posted the biggest losses, as oil prices fell to an eight-month low.
The pullback follows strides by major indexes last week. On Friday, the S&P cruised to its 33rd record close of the year, as investors viewed the disappointing August jobs report as leeway for the Federal Reserve to keep its easy-money policies in place longer.
Regards,
Ted
http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-futures-lower-1410179074#printMode
Markets At A Glance: http://markets.wsj.com/us

My understanding is that an inheritance in the form of individual stocks is one of the best methods of helping your heirs manage tax burdens since the cost basis of the individual stocks inherited adjusts to correspond with the stock price on the date of death. This, at least, eliminates a generation (your life) of capital gains taxes for your heirs.

Yes, essentially your cost basis reverts to the current price through a step up basis when you inherit. That saves you paying the capital gains the deceased would have accumulated.
The Roth was one of those things where the government got it right. I'm not sure of any justification for requiring mandatory withdrawals for them. While you don't want wealth concentration, Roths are a tool for middle class families to stock away wealth in a tax beneficial manner. People don't get rich off them. So unless the administration is trying to encourage spending...?
People should also be aware that inherited IRAs are no longer afforded bankruptcy protection per a Supreme Court ruling last week. Essentially the Court said they aren't "retirement money" if inherited. You can try to roll inherited IRAs over, but that has possible tax consequences.

All of these Roth conversions have also helped pre-fund the tax coffers of cities, states, as well as the federal government.
Roth IRAs have many other benefits other than just estate planning. For a young investor with a limited income, there are tax credits benefits when contributing to a Roth. For the temporarily under employed or early retiree there are conversion opportunities as their income typically has fallen into a lower tax bracket. Not to mention that taking distributions from your Roth account has fewer restrictons, penalties and tax consequences when compared to traditional IRAs.
My understanding is that an inheritance in the form of individual stocks is one of the best methods of helping your heirs manage tax burdens since the cost basis of the individual stocks inherited adjusts to correspond with the stock price on the date of death. This, at least, eliminates a generation (your life) of capital gains taxes for your heirs.
Please correct me if I have this wrong.

"American Funds, which wasn't implicated in the scandal ..."
I suppose it depends on how one defines "implicated". I think "implicate" is closer to imply, insinuate than it is to shown, proven to be. In any case, not the best wording.
FINRA accused American Funds (Capital Group) of "making improper payments to about 50 brokerages from 2001 to 2003 as an incentive to get them to pitch its funds to investors."
LA Times, May 3, 2008.
Capital Group contested the charges, and exonerated itself. AFAIK, it was the only family to do so.

FYI: With Year-to-Date Gains Now at 5.9%, Will It Be Only a 'Single Digit' Year?
Regards,
Ted
http://online.wsj.com/articles/despite-angst-stock-funds-advanced-3-8-in-august-1410120119#printMode

Is there a LC index fund?
IMHO, LC is the area where indexing makes the most sense. Unless you are looking for a manager that has a mandate to preserve capital first, hedge with cash when stocks look pricey and that is the strategy you want (ala funds like YAFFX, PRBLX or SEEDX to name a few) the S&P500 index will out perform most LC funds over time.

There is an index fund VINIX.

Is there a LC index fund?
IMHO, LC is the area where indexing makes the most sense. Unless you are looking for a manager that has a mandate to preserve capital first, hedge with cash when stocks look pricey and that is the strategy you want (ala funds like YAFFX, PRBLX or SEEDX to name a few) the S&P500 index will out perform most LC funds over time.

FYI: (Click On "Profiting From Flaws" Article At Top Google Search)
Regards,
Ted
Joe Huber, chief executive and chief investment officer of Huber Capital Management in Los Angeles, combines research-driven, fundamental value investing with behavioral finance. He and his team try to find attractive and cheap stocks that investors are overlooking owing to biases. One of these biases is a tendency to weight a recent event -- a quarterly earnings miss, for example -- too heavily in assessing a company's prospects.
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=profiting+from+flaws+barron's&oq=profiting+from+flaws+barron's&gs_l=hp.3...1326.19816.0.23200.33.27.2.4.4.0.226.2185.23j3j1.27.0....0...1c.1.53.hp..9.24.1442.GvqhfH5dYa0
M* Snapshot Of HULIX; http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=HULIX&region=usa&culture=en-US
Lipper Snapshot Of HULIX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/hulix
HULIX Is Ranked #28 In The (LCV) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-value/huber-capital-equity-income-fund/hulix

>>>If you listened to Tepper then you lost out on a lot of stock market gains:<<<<
Anybody that listens to anybody...... well, we don't want to go there. Maybe that is why only one in 20 U.S households have over $1,000,000 in investable assets because they are always listening to someone else.

On May 15, Tepper was nervous about stocks and said "don't be too friggin long". If you listened to Tepper then you lost out on a lot of stock market gains:
http://www.finalternatives.com/node/27056
I think Tepper feels he is trapped in momentum stocks and needs an exit strategy. He is trying to induce the public to stampede out of bonds into equities so he can unload some of his overpriced equity positions.

" In reality that family was quite complex with possessed almost limitless power, especially in Europe. "
You can still follow the present day members of the family with RIT Capital Partners (which is an investment trust in London, which is sort of like a CEF here) in London, which is chaired by Jacob Rothschild and has investments in both other Rothschild entities as well as in the Rockefeller Co.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/rockefeller-and-rothschild-banking-dynasties-join-forces/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Years ago, the Vanguard International Index Fund started out as a fund-of-funds, holding shares of the European Index and Pacific Index Funds.
At some point, it, too, converted to a structure in which the fund held foreign shares directly.
Does anyone recall whether or not investors in Vanguard's International Index fund incurred capital gains distributions? If not, how did Vanguard do it? Clever timing (i.e., conversions incurred at a time when there was a loss), or something else? Thanks.

First, a clarification on funds. The fund you're referring to was (and is) Vanguard Developed Markets Fund. As you wrote, it used to hold two index funds. In late 2008/early 2009 it switched to investing directly in stocks. Earlier this year, Vanguard merged it into its Tax-Managed International fund, and called the resulting fund Developed Markets Index Fund.
AFAIK, there isn't/wasn't a fund called Vanguard International Index Fund. There was (and is) however, a Vanguard Total International Index Fund. That fund used to be comprised of three index funds - European Index (VEURX), Pacific Index(VPACX), and Emerging Markets Index(VEIEX) funds. (Tickers are correct - Vanguard invested in Investor class shares, not Admiral class shares.)
About half a year or so before Developed Markets was allowed to invest in individual stocks, Vanguard started the same transition for its Total International Index Fund. Vanguard announced the completion of that transition Feb 27, 2009.
Here's a Bogleheads thread on the Total Int'l Index fund transition. In it, the second poster quotes from the Vanguard announcement:

The change ... is not expected to result in capital gains distributions to shareholders.

So that's part of the answer to your question.
As to how, your guess may be correct. Note that these conversions took place late 2008 early to mid 2009, when most funds were sitting on large losses due to the market collapse. Clever timing indeed.

Stop investing in MM funds altogether? What nonsense? Someone in retirement does not want all his money in stocks/bonds. If he is raising his "cash" stake does not mean he is "invested" in MM funds. It is because one does not want to risk all capital "invested" in Stocks/bonds.
Second, all 401Ks do NOT offer Stable Value funds anymore. How can participants "look for stable value funds?".
Finally, incompetent regulators before coming up with such a rule need to also make 401k plan participants offer a CASH option. In IRAs at brokerages one has that option. In 401ks that does not have an option. If Stable Value fund is not available in 401k and MM funds are risky because they NAV can now float how is a retiree to safeguard wealth accumulated over the years?

Steve Romick's discussion of this development.From FPACX fund's latest letter to shareholders.
"With yields remaining artificially low, we observe zero interest-rate policy perverting capital allocation decisions. Money continues to flow around the globe in a quest for yield, instigating a continued rise in risk assets.
Many who have been accustomed to the lower risk of high-grade bonds and Treasuries are now finding themselves looking elsewhere. There is no better example of this than the first six months of this year when global stock
markets, high-yield bonds, gold, oil and long-dated Treasury bonds all saw their value increase in chorus, a real rarity. As yields have declined, the expectations and spending needs of investors appear to have remained constant,leading them to assume additional risk in varied asset classes around the world. Whereas many past bull-market
rallies have been greed-based, this one seems more need-based.
The U.S. isn’t alone in keeping rates low. Many countries continue to harbor deflation fears. Japan is still below its inflation target. EU countries have just marginal inflation and it wouldn’t take much to tip them into
deflation. Some EU countries like Greece and Portugal are already suffering from outright deflation. As a result,
the EU overnight rate is now a negative 0.1%, which means it costs banks to keep money on deposit with the 3
European Central Bank (ECB). Its main lending rate is now down to just 0.15%. It’s hard to argue that such low
rates wouldn’t affect an investment decision.
With slow growth and low inflation (and fear of deflation) plaguing most developed economies, it’s hard
to see the current easy-money regime ending any time soon. For it to end, the Fed must first slow its buying, then stop buying and then either liquidate or roll the assets they’ve purchased. It appears that we have a ways to go before they aren’t accommodative — unless their hand is forced. The U.S. is increasingly on its own in financing
its deficits, with foreigners having largely stepped out of the U.S. Treasury market.
If we need financing assistance
from our trading partners, then we might need higher interest rates to get them to step up their Treasury buying.
Or, the Fed could always reverse course on the QE taper and continue to self-finance. Or, the current account balance shrinks, thereby requiring less funding, with either exports and the economy growing, or imports and the economy shrinking. That’s a lot of “oars” needed to keep the boat moving — which begs some degree of caution.
http://www.fpafunds.com/docs/quarterly-commentaries-crescent-fund/2014-q2-crescentBD9EEAFAF16B.pdf?sfvrsn=4

FYI: Sell in May and go away? Not with this summer's hot action.
In August, investors dumped ETFs that short the stock market — and picked up a healthy shot of gains from biotechnology funds.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTg0MjUyNTY=
Enlarged Graphic: http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=webETPbio090314.gif&docId=715631&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=562&caption=&id=715630

FYI: U.S. stocks fell Tuesday, pulling back from gains in August that were the largest monthly increases for the Dow industrials and the S&P 500 since February.
Regards,
Ted
http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-futures-inch-higher-1409660047#printMode
Markets At A Glance: http://markets.wsj.com/us