Reply to @catch22: Thanks so much for your follow-up explanation, Catch. I stated it poorly that TIPs lost too much for me in 2008. What I meant was that, since I am hoping for small GAINS during the next crash ONLY for my husband's NEW ROTH account transfer, the -2% to -7% losses in 2008 of the TIPs I have been tracking would not fit for this portfolio. However, they certainly would be more than acceptable for my other portfolios to help counteract the much larger losses in the relatively small percentage of my equity funds.
Your change from +90% equities prior to 2008 to your current portfolio is remarkable and impressive.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1444822/000119312512400007/d414641d497.htm
AQR FUNDS
Supplement dated September 21, 2012 (“Supplement”)
To the Class I and N Prospectus, dated May 1, 2012 (“Prospectus”),
of the AQR Risk Parity Fund
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the above-dated Prospectus. You may obtain copies of the Fund’s Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information free of charge, upon request, by calling (866) 290-2688, or by writing to AQR Funds, P.O. Box 2248, Denver, CO 80201-2248. Please review this important information carefully.
Effective at the close of business November 16, 2012 (the “Closing Date”), the AQR Risk Parity Fund (the “Fund”) will be closed to new investors, subject to certain exceptions. Existing shareholders of the Fund will be permitted to make additional investments in the Fund and reinvest dividends and capital gains after the Closing Date in any account that held shares of the Fund as of the Closing Date.
Notwithstanding the closing of the Fund, you may open a new account in the Fund (including through an exchange from another AQR Fund) and thereafter reinvest dividends and capital gains in the Fund if you meet the Fund’s eligibility requirements and are:
• A current shareholder of the Fund as of the Closing Date—either (a) in your own name or jointly with another or as trustee for another, or (b) as beneficial owner of shares held in another name opening a (i) new individual account or IRA account in your own name, (ii) trust account, (iii) joint account with another party or (iv) account on behalf of an immediate family member;
• A qualified defined contribution retirement plan that offers the Fund as an investment option as of the Closing Date purchasing shares on behalf of new and existing participants;
• An investor opening a new account at a financial institution and/or financial intermediary firm that (i) has clients currently invested in the Fund and (ii) has been pre-approved by the Adviser to purchase the Fund on behalf of certain of its clients. Investors should contact the firm through which they invest to determine whether new accounts are permitted; or
• A participant in a tax-exempt retirement plan of the Adviser and its affiliates and rollover accounts from those plans, as well as employees of the Adviser and its affiliates, trustees and officers of the Trust and members of their immediate families.
Except as otherwise noted, once an account is closed, additional investments or exchanges from other AQR Funds will not be accepted unless you are one of the investors listed above. Investors may be required to demonstrate eligibility to purchase shares of the Fund before an investment is accepted.
The Fund reserves the right to (i) make additional exceptions that, in its judgment, do not adversely affect the Adviser’s ability to manage the Fund, (ii) reject any investment, including those pursuant to exceptions detailed above, that it believes will adversely affect the Adviser’s ability to manage the Fund, and (iii) close and re-open the Fund to new or existing shareholders at any time.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE

Reply to @andrei: Then you should not buy this fund if you have concerns.

...but its period of significant outperformance is only about 5 years old.

What data are you looking at? 5, 10, even 15 year returns blow away it's competition. 15 years takes into account not one but possibly 2 market cycles. Lucky??? I disagree. And again, the fund is about preserving capital and being conservative when the manager sees fit. The fund wins because it stays away from big losses in comparison to it's peers. The fund has underperformed the S&P500 over the last year. And there have been other years it has underperformed. But by understanding the managers long term goals, short term under performance means little to me.
So my comparison, again, and why I suggested YAFFX is because of the investing philosophies between Cinnamond and Yacktman. I believe they are similar. And the capture ratio tract record is terrific for the Yacktman funds. Heck, the capture ratios for YAFFX are even better then Cinnamond's old fund, ICMAX.

Hi Charles. You are right if you are only looking at standard deviation. But that can be misleading. Here is the welcoming statement when you go to the Yacktman website.

At Yacktman Asset Management we are proud of our successful, consistent, long-term track record. Our experienced investment team focuses on delivering risk-controlled results by being objective, diligent, and patient.

Risk controlled is the key.
Now any fund group can state that their priority is risk control in their literature. But from my experience, closely watching the fund while owning it for the last 4 years, the man does exactly what he says. He becomes cautious when valuations are high and/or when economic conditions look bleak. He has no problem moving large percentages of money to cash if conditions dictate caution. His management style to me is very close the Eric Cinnamond's style when Cinnamond ran ICMAX and now ARIVX. And this is the management style I can hold on to rough times.
The proof Yacktman is one of the best managers available to the average "Joe Mike" (i think) is looking at the M* upside/downside capture data.
Over the last 3 years, YAFFX has captured 78% of the upside market returns. and on down months only had 61% of the loss. If you look at it's category peers, over the last 3 years, all other large cap blend managers were getting 98% of the upside (great!) BUT during losing periods getting 109% of the loss.
If you look over the last 10 years at upside/downside capture data Yacktman's ability to limit losses is even more striking. He has captured 99% of the gains in up markets and had only 74% of potential losses. His peers on the other hand captured 98% of the gains (very similar to Yacktman) but had 103% of losses in down markets. That is a huge difference. The man knows how to limit losses during rough markets - just like his welcoming page says.
Why can I sleep well with this fund? I trust that Yacktman, like Cinnamond, can limit losses during the inevitable down markets.

Reply to @scott: I completely agree with you about the unrealistic expectations of our government (or some world governments for that matter) all of a sudden taking responsibility and actually fixing things. Most are such stupid, egotistical, blind and incompetent people, and I'm constantly amazed that many of the good ones can stand staying in office!
But I don't understand your comment about treasuries (especially long-term) being a good place to invest in now to protect against the likelihood of the next crash (or at least strong downturn) - so I clearly don't understand treasuries. How can long-term treasuries be a good investment now when the rates are almost zero? Any chance you can give me a paragraph synopsis of how funds who buy treasuries at these ridiculous rates now can make any gains with these?

Reply to @mns: Thanks, mns. I would have thought long-term treasuries would be the worst investments given the way this economy has fallen... but I did hold on to one long-term treasury MF until a few days ago and it kept surprising me by continuing to do so well. I don't understand why, or how long these will continue to show substantial gains given the fact that the rates clearly can't get much lower without going to zero.

So, those are all valid points. If you buy a fund and you expect it to have a diversified portfolio and its 90% in financial, you should sell. Most people sold later and personally, I don't think most people understood what they were getting into. Not to say that I am never guilty of this, I don't think I understood the strategy when I bought into the fund.
Personally I've spent a lot of time looking at BAC and I own a lot. I'm going to tell you why I own it and why Berkowitz owns it. Its cheep, damn cheep, make you rich cheep. People are afraid of banks and so they don't look at the assest and they don't consider the likelihood the bank will fail for idiosyncratic reasons. Bank of america has a large, rotten, mortgage portfolio. One that is rapidly decreasing in size and that costs it about $1B a quarter. Over the last 12months, BAC made something like $10B. Without the mortgage portfolio, every other section of the bank is profitable, and mortgage portfolio will cost it less over time. It should make something like $12-$15B if rates don't rise and more if they do. Or it could fail if there is Armageddon, even though its capital position is stronger than most big banks. A reasonable valuation, given the risks, is something like $12-$15B market cap, which puts it at something like $12-13 a share. In a perfect world, this is $25 and in a nightmare, its $3-4. I haven't really had the time to look, but AIG looks similarly cheep. Sears is harder to say, because its a real estate play and I'm not capable of evaluating that. Someone that is should be able to make money.
The point of this is, it should matter whether you think my valuation of BAC is a good one. The more important question, is that a good way of making investments, and do you think Bruce Berkowitz is capable of doing that well. That's kinda what he does. To him, concentration is a plus when you have a good enough idea, sector allocation doesn't matter, nor does the direction of the market. Only the difference between what he thinks a company is worth and what it sells for. If that's not what you want, sell, but why would you judge that by any other criteria? Berkowitz expects the strategy to work overtime. If he bought a stock three years ago and he still thinks its cheep he'll buy more. If you have a different expectation of the fund, really any fund, than the manager does, its not going to go well for you.

Reply to @scott:
Scott,
How does Marketfield look for purchase in a taxable account? I have no room in my tax deferred accounts and I am in a fairly high tax bracket. When I look at M* 1, 3 and 5-Year Tax Analysis, the tax cost ratio is low, but of course, that is looking back. The fund does have a 132% turnover ratio.
On the related, what about the 9.58% in potential capital gains exposure for a taxable account when December is around the corner?
Mona

Well, Cathy; howdy. How does your garden grow? With silver bells and cockle shells.... Okay, away from the nursery rhymes.
Personally, we do not and find no reason to hold any CD at this time; as the end result is almost as bad as some investments, as the "real return" is negative when factoring inflation; and worse yet if the CD's are held in a taxable account. As to recession; I do believe it is still in place.
This would be my "convince" choice for a spouse or friend who is "itchy" about the markets:
A plain jane TIPs fund. Yes, I see the head shakers; but:
TIP, 3 year chart
TIP, M* performance page
The below article just popped up a few days ago.
TIPs in a brave QE3 world
TIP is representative of many managed TIPs funds; although, be aware some of these funds many also have up to a 20% exposure to corp. bonds; but generally AAA issues.
Many of the Real Return funds have either the ability or true exposure to TIPs holdings.
Not all TIPs active managed funds will perform in line with TIP; as managers position the holdings among duration types. Direct exposure to this area may be had via funds as:
STPZ or LTPZ.
TIPs, being U.S. gov't issues, of course; may provide and have proven of value when global markets as "itchy" about "things". May of 2010 and 2011 were itchy times; as well as August of 2011 with the downgrade of the U.S. credit worthiness. You may view these time periods in the 3 year chart for TIPs reactions to these events. May, 2010 through July, 2010 found about a + 2% and March, 2011 through Nov., 2011 found about a + 11%. Will there be swings? Yes, not unlike any other area. But, the price swings (for the past 4 years) won't cause one to spill their glass of wine onto the linen table cloth. :):):)
Yes, there will be those that think one is a fool to invest in an area that has a negative yield. The negative yield comes from "demand"; which, of course, drives the price upward. Our house does not hold TIPs for the benefit of yield, but to obtain the capital appreciation from the upward price. This is the driver with many bond funds today; not just a yield. Currently, our house will take both......thank you.
One other area of consideration, is low duration bond funds. I know there are other likely candidates; but my choice today (without further research) would be PLDDX. I note low/short duration, versus funds that may be named ultra-short bond funds; although some of these may do well, too; and may indeed have similar holdings. PLDDX also has a track record involving the 2008 market melt (- 1.6% ).
I know you are very good at digging into choices. Do not forget the easy finder here at MFO, from the gracious Accipiter; being the drop down menu of Resources at the MFO title bar.
Select navigator, in the "fund" box area, begin typing "inflation" and the TIPs related funds list will begin to populate. Do the same for the words "low duration" or "short duration".
The lists may not be totally inclusive, but fine lists, regardless. Obviously, you know of other methods you have used to find fund types, by naming/investing style.
Some of this was going to be a "Funds Boat" write, but your question finds the note here and now.
Lastly, TIPs can't and won't fix everything for a totally sleep easy investment sector. Rising interest rates will play into this area, too. As the global economy is still broken, our house doesn't have any problem with monies in this area, today. While there are many multi-sector bond funds that one may consider as a "core bond fund", I would also currently place a TIPs fund with a decent, long term track report into this area for some of one's holdings. The above 3 year chart may not be the best that one could find; but the 50, 100 and 200 lines tell some of the story, eh? One surely could do a lot worse.
If you choose to invest the Roth monies into TIPs, you may choose to use the TIP etf and obtain the lower E.R.
Disclosure: Can't fully determine via M* analyze; but about 15% of our bond portfolio mix is involved in some form of TIPs.
Gotta get back to work.
Take care,
Catch

A few different views.
One: you have governments that seem to be trying to attempt anything to stop the possibility of recession, which, while not pleasant, is part of the flow of the business cycle. You have a QE program that is open-ended, and could be expanded or altered as time goes on if it does not achieve the desired result. So you can have the possibility that financial assets continue to act one way while the fundamentals (Fedex warning for like, what, the second time this year?) act another. As for shorting, I think people could certainly have success in individual names, but big picture, I question substantially shorting into currency debasement - and that will likely lead to the kind of "one after another" short covering rallies that we've seen over the last couple of years.
There will be dips and down days, but when you have open-ended money printing (or, as I noted in another thread this morning, rather than QE Infinity, I've come up with iQE, which will likely have much more appeal), you want to continue to have exposure to real assets and strong businesses with at least a good portion of your portfolio.
It's difficult to recommend something that will do well in another recession, as it's difficult to get clarity on what may happen or how policy makers will intervene.
Forester Value (FVALX) is an example of a fund that has done a very good job with the difficult task of dialing risk up and down significantly. That is one of the few stock funds that didn't lose in 2008 (I think it was flat?)
Marketfield (MFLDX) is a highly flexible fund that I continue to like and recommend. That fund is global, multi-asset and also has done an excellent job dialing up and down risk, as well as being nimble. It has been bought and I believe it will change next month (?) - shareholders now will be grandfathered in at current terms. That fund will lose if there is another downturn, but likely - given the tools at management's disposal - not a ton (the fund lost in the teens % in 2008, then returned over 30% in 2009.
Pimco Unconstrained (PUBDX) is not going to offer really anymore than the CD (I believe the yield on that fund is around 2%), but is a highly flexible fixed income fund that can go just about anywhere and actually can position from a potential rise in interest rates. That fund is an absolute return fund (and it did do pretty well in 2008) where the attempt is to offer gains in any market environment. There is yield, but it is less a priority.
Pimco All Asset All Authority (PAUDX). Fund-of-funds, terrifically managed by the highly regarded Rob Arnott. Can short with 20% of the fund. Lost single digit % in 2008. Offers a nice yield.
An issue becomes that you are looking for a 4% yield that is "very low risk" - it doesn't really exist - in a world of ZIRP as far as the eye can see, people have bought up fixed income considerably and there's nothing (that I'm aware of) that is going to yield around 4% and not lose at least a fair amount if there's a real downturn.
I wouldn't necessarily run to treasuries, either. It doesn't yield much, but I do continue to like Pimco Unconstrained as sort of an "all weather"/"go anywhere" attempt to have exposure to the bond market, as I think what may be considered "low risk" assets today may not be tomorrow or a year from now, and I think the flexibility is a priority.

Yes, that's what's supposed to happen. The rapid-fire computerized trading has divorced the Markets from Main Street, methinks. Look at what happened to oil yesterday. I heard remarks today on Bloomberg to the effect that QE3 will juice the Markets, but not do much good for anyone at the grocery store or local repair shop. Makes sense to me--- unfortunately. The way things have become, it seems to me that there are separate worlds, now: The Markets, and then Consumer-land, which must simply live with and adjust to what the goddam f*****g traders' computers have done, buying on an inhale and selling before you can exhale. Seems to me that just to survive, one MUST be a participant in The Market, and segregate/divorce your gains from everyday expenses. Otherwise everything just gets piddled away.

Well of course it depends on when you got in as many stocks had high peaks and low lows. If you got into any stock with substantial amount of money at a major peak then you're toast for quite some time.
So in the post 2008-2009 era - Yes AIG stock declined 50+% in 2011 but don't forget that was after a 90+% climb in 2010. So far in 2012 it's up around 48% even during an extremely shaky global economic backdrop....And there's still much much more potential room for recovery and gains in the future.
FAIRX: +37.80% YTD
===
Berkowitz estimates that AIG is going to generate $5 or $6 per share in cash on a forward basis and that an additional $15 billion to $20 billion more of assets could be sold. The stock is trading in the low- to mid-30s, which is approximately half of book value, so a large portion of the proceeds from asset sales could be used to buy back stock at 50 cents on the dollar. With some continued reason¬able capital allocation, Berkowitz sees AIG as potentially having a book value in excess of $70 a share in 2013. Given the current buy-back process, Berkowitz says, “AIG could be done with the government by the end of first quarter of next year, which is three years ahead of schedule.” Berkowitz believes investors won't return to the stock until the Treasury's remaining ownership is at least close to zero, at which point he believes the stock price should appreciate and converge with book value. This doesn't include any expectation of the stock returning to a mid-single-digit multiple of book value, a level at which the company has traded at in the past. As for figuring out whether investors will return to the company after the government is completely out or before that, Berkowitz says, “I don't know, I've never been good at that . . . All I know is that we've got something that's worth over $60 today, and it's going to be worth over $70 sometime next year, in my opinion, and I can't see how price doesn't eventually meet book value.”

I agree with Bee entirely. I also strongly questioned the appeal of Sears when it was over $100. Even if it gains from being broken up or other plans, I strongly doubt it'll ever see those levels again. From the article - "Sears does just enough, so they're not breaking the terms of their very long lease.” It's not that there isn't value there, but the company (especially one that whose turnaround strategy is apparently doing "just enough" and hiring a new CEO with no retail experience) will likely end up selling off parts and pieces - and it's thanks to Lampert's poor handling of the company. He deserves no praise for what he's done to an iconic American company.
This article from last year - I think - still fits: http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/05/12/eddie-lampert-dementor/
St Joe looks like it's coming back nicely.
I'll also say that I don't like the company, but think Ted made the entirely correct decision going with the preferred. Additionally, although Ted and I have occasionally had disagreements - I'll offer him a genuine congrats on a very nice investment/trade.

---The original bailout; past all of the nasties of financial institutions and associated, being their practices and morals, was likely needed to prevent full blown financial chaos, meaning and including, limited access to your electronic investment dollars, which are a series of 1's and 0's residing within a server.
Central bankers, governments all around the globe and companies.....growth, growth, growth.
Is economic growth a substitute for having a happy family and a quality life; full of gotta have it things? Some amount of wealth surely can contribute to an individuals/family opportunities to advance their position in society. The marketing folks, which include more than those at QVC, HSN, Walmart and related, are found happily at their work in many U.S. federal positions, too. The congressional folks are always marketing this or that; and this would include the current actions of the Federal Reserve; and the chairman, more so. And a U.S. president thinks they have power, eh?
So, is the pure mandate of an economy and those involved; to shape policy for, growth at any cost? Has such a model provided much benefit in reducing poverty or adding equality among population groups? While this may seem an "off-the-wall" note related to investing; many of these actions on a large enough scale or as a cumulative cluster of monies always affects people and for we here, the investing cycles. One must consider whether this grand experiment in current monetary policy may indeed, "Burn down the house" in the name of growth and a lower unemployment rate that may have entered a phase of economic cycle that is "now normal". Japan is still working on this model; although most of their debt is internally owned, unlike the U.S. The Federal Reserve and Treasury are working on this, too; and may indeed own most of whatever resembles the U.S. government credit markets, going forward.
The dog, spinning in a never-ending circle, we know; never really may catch it's tail, regardless of the size or speed of the dog. A continued "bark, bark" does not help.
Perhaps the ultimate goal of a central bank, in the developed countries; should be to determine (if this is possible) how much monetary stimulus could help a given economy during times of stress, and merely issue monies, tax free to each and every citizen who is of legal status to that country. Based upon data believed to be correct; during the past 4 years about $3.2 trillion of Fed. Reserve actions have been put in place, against a U.S. population of about 316 million. The math indicates about $10,127 per capita or a family of 4 receiving a little over $40,000 during the last 4 years. Yes, some of this money would be wasted from poor decisions; but much of it would have been spent properly and likely generating income for businesses, who in turn may have hired more folks; and all involved would have paid more in taxes at a federal, state and local level.
Alas and meanwhile; the dog chases it's tail.
Final notes, and not all inclusive; by any means, in no particular order.
--- 1995 brought NAFTA, GATT and the World Trade Organization via a lame duck congressional session.
--- Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Clinton publically declares that Glass-Steagall is no longer relevant.
--- Grant money. Check around your community/state for projects pending or in place; and review how much of the funding monies are in the form of a federal grant. Yes, work is created; and numerous projects are valid, but too many are not. When a community (a true event from about 3 years ago in MI) could not support 10 local and private art "centers", then the local economy has spoken. However, the U.S. district congress person was able to "enable" grants monies to help extend the dying entities. A news story on the same day noted that the local food bank was "empty". Money, not well spent; for the sake of the arts, in my opinion.
--- Silly spenders. Ah, congress and the government. One may not deny that there are those with the truest of hearts and intentions roaming around the streets of D.C. But, they do seem to become derailed in clear thinking, sometimes. I will only note two items. Fuel from corn and/or bio-products is one such area. The cost and benefit, from my knowledge is to the downside. Okay, a new market for corn is in place and some jobs have been created. The downside of the E85 blend is problems with use in older engines of all types (sludge formation, causing numerous problems) and take a look at a new vehicle sticker to find the mileage notation when using an E85 fuel, versus traditional unleaded fuel. Say what, it is lower MPG; can't be. Lastly, and an example that crosses many people and places over very many years and not solely directed at this person; is the "bridge to nowhere in Alaska". Come on D.C. people, why don't you all just act properly? Oh, wait there is more.............I almost forgot about the lobby folks in D.C. Talk about stimulating the economy. Well, at least in D.C., for the restaurants and hotels.
--- FASB.
Hey, let us change the rules for bad assets....cool, let's do it
--- Derivatives.
A few trillion among friends, all is well; don't worry, be happy
But, wait; there's more, the infommercial stated
--- Bernanke, May, 2007.
Mr. Bernanke, FRB speech, May, 2007
Mr. Bernanke statements, May, 2007....."But I believe that, in the long run, markets are better than regulators at allocating credit."
"All that said, given the fundamental factors in place that should support the demand for housing, we believe the effect of the troubles in the subprime sector on the broader housing market will likely be limited, and we do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system. The vast majority of mortgages, including even subprime mortgages, continue to perform well. Past gains in house prices have left most homeowners with significant amounts of home equity, and growth in jobs and incomes should help keep the financial obligations of most households manageable."
--- Fight fire, with fire ? Los Alamos, NM got lucky with a best guess method. Hoping QE's to the Nth power may be as fortunate.
May, 2000
May, 2011
--- Free market capitalism. Ah, words that are uttered by some on the great television tube and in print. There are some folks who do reside in free market capitalism. Those being the reported 30 million nomadic peoples of the planet and those who are in, or moving to the underground/barter economic systems in developed countries. The reminder of peoples are moved and stroked by sometimes perverted and corrupt monetary and political methods.
--- Low interest rate environment. We know the low interest rate environment is face slapping the many who previously relied upon the world of CD's and related money markets to generate some extra income. The side effects, not unlike the medication commercials on tv are too numerous to mention. A few areas of the negative side are: The aforementioned CD/money market downside. Pension funds and insurance companies that have to alter their plans going forward; and moving to the "riskier side" with investments (hedge funds, private equity, etc.) One side effect is that many long standing policies/insurance companies that provided long term health care plans are no longer offering such policies, either to companies for employees or to private citizens, as investment returns can no longer match the growth rate of health care. Hot money moving into whatever, many times being commodities and resulting price increases; whether the price increase should really be driven with pure and natural demand. Two side effects of this are higher prices for the consumer and perhaps lower earnings for companies who at least trail with price increases; and if they do not, their profit margins suffer.
The end results of low interest rates, may be the opposite of any implied benefit.
No, part of this is not a Mr. Bernanke bash. In theory, he fully expects this grand money experiment to have a happy ending; in order, that history may judge him in a favorable position.
And you are correct, you did not volunteer for this experiment either.
Our house wishes all well going forward with the investment pursuit.
I am finished.
Regards,
Catch

I did a Google search. I have found references of SSgA real asset fund in several company 401k summary. It does not look like a mutual fund with a ticker you can query at mutual fund sites. This seems to be one of those funds specifically designed for 401k use. Your plan administrators should be able to provide info about it.
Update:
The following PDF has some info on its composition at the time the PDF is prepared.
http://www.esghr.com/Portals/2/hrp_pdf/401k Materials_3-9-2011 8-53-02 AM.pdf
SSgA Real Asset (6/09)
Managed by State Street Global Advisors Funds Management
30% Wilshire DJ REIT, 25% S&P GSCI Commodity, 25% MSCI World
Natural Resources Stocks, 20% Barclays Capital Inflation Notes
This fund has ER=0.5% but seems to be a fund of funds with underlying funds ER=0.3% So, you are paying about 0.8% for this mix in total.
Here is another plan document that includes this fund:
https://fulfillment.lfg.com/CF/LFG/EF/26198/DIR-INV-BRC007_Z12_VIEW.pdf
SSgA Real Asset Non-Lending Series
Seeks to match the returns of a composite benchmark of the REIT
Index (30%), S&P GSCI Index (25%), capitalization-weighted MSCI
World Natural Resources Stocks Index (25%), and Barclays Capital
Inflation Notes Index (20%).
In this document underlying fund ER is 0.22 so total ER=0.5+0.22=0.72%

Thank you so much for your comments, they're greatly appreciated. I don't really want to share the entire portfolio and haven't, because I think one:) It's really a very eccentric portfolio and has risks that I think are beyond or much beyond what I want to recommend those who are in/near retirement age. 2:) A good deal of it is individual stocks, which I really don't recommend because of risk and some of them are not terribly liquid. The stocks are also more reflecting my themes and interests (some of which aren't themes covered by funds/etfs), which understandably may not be someone else's.
I will, however, share some highlights and lowlights on both sides (stocks and funds.) There are more on both sides - this is just a sample.
Stocks:
* Jardine Matheson. This hasn't done a whole lot this year, but it remains a very long-term holding, as I think it remains a compelling, blue-chip play on Asia. A very large conglomerate, this owns everything from the Mandarin Oriental to 7-11s to real estate to IKEAs to car dealerships to...on and on. The company has been around since the 1800's. I really like the Asian conglomerates, although Jardine is - I think - the most consistent. Hutchsion Whampoa (which is much more global, owning everything from a Canadian oil company to infrastructure to ports to a massive health and beauty chain in Europe and Asia) has some really compelling assets, but I dumped it after it didn't fare that well.
* Glencore (D'oh.) This has been a real disappointment, but I'm not selling - Glencore is like the Goldman Sachs of the commodities world - they have a massive trading operation, combined with a massive amount of assets around the world, including buying Viterra earlier this year and being in the midst of taking over Xstrata, which has been one of the most bizarre M & A situations I've ever seen, even requiring Tony Blair to step in and mediate between Glencore and a Sovereign Wealth Fund who was one of Xstrata's largest shareholders. Thankfully I didn't buy at the IPO last year (whose prospectus was a whopping 600 pages), but still a real downer. I still like the company and particularly like the real assets they own, including - In Australia, Paraguay, Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, Glencore farms 270,000 hectares of owned or leased land. If the merger/takeover/whatever it is today of the rest of Xstrata goes through, that will result in, as a Bloomberg article put it well, "The combined company would be a vertically- integrated commodities giant, with an interest in the production, transportation and trading of everything from the food on consumers’ plates to the metal used for their utensils."
* Brookfield Infrastructure. A highly unique spin-off from parent Brookfield Infrastructure, this owns literal infrastructure - everything from toll roads in Chile to ports in Europe to rail in Australia. This is sort of public version of a private infrastructure fund, and it is opportunistic; what it owns in five years may look very different than what it owns today. This is an MLP though, so it does produce a k-1 at tax time. It does yield around 4.3%. I also like the parent company, but not as much as BIP.
* Singtel (Singapore Telecom) I particularly like Singtel for what it offers - not only does it offer a play on mobile in the region and a nice dividend, but the company owns stakes in several other telcos in the region, giving it exposure to Thailand, Indonesia, India, Australia, Bangladesh and elsewhere. The company also has a new division that is actively seeking start-ups in areas related to mobile/mobile technology, the main one so far being Amobee, a large global mobile advertising firm, which I think is a pretty fascinating little company (http://www.amobee.com/) and could develop into something really sizable down the road as mobile continues to be such an enormous theme.
As for Amobee, I think this article is a particularly interesting read - "Why Mobile Operators Are Becoming Mad Men": http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/17/mobile-mad-men/ (really good discussion on the future of mobile advertising, which has been such a big thing lately, with Facebook's mobile problems and elsewhere.)
I think my interest in the mobile space is not Apple (although Apple will continue to do well), but to think about and find ideas that benefit from the soaring amount and use of smartphones. What do all these phones in the world lead to in terms of new experiences - mobile advertising, mobile payments, etc. etc. etc. In other words, what develops over the next decade in terms of new experiences from having all these mobile phones in existence. In terms of mobile payments, you're seeing Visa and all the other card companies pushing for it and looking to serve the "unbanked" (their term: "financial inclusion" - see below) , especially in developing markets. Telecom companies are realizing that they have to move beyond just offering plans and look for further ways to engage with and deliver information and experiences to customers.
See Visa's "Currency of Progress" channel on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/user/CurrencyofProgress?feature=watch), and incredibly slick mini-documentaries, such as this one focusing on Rwanda -
and this one for Visa's "Vision for the Future":

Finally, "Making Mobile Payments a Reality around the World":

Additionally, Visa (which I don't own, but using it as an example of something that's benefiting from the change in payment tech - discussed here http://seekingalpha.com/article/857581-buy-visa-a-secular-growth-story-of-financial-technology?source=feed) is pushing for change in the US to EMV chip payment cards instead of the familiar strip. This has been done already in other parts of the world, but Visa and it's TIP (Technology Innovation Program) is going to force change - "Second, Visa is requiring that all U.S. merchant acquirers and sub-processors must be able to support chip transactions no later than April 1, 2013. Third, Visa is implementing a liability shift for domestic and cross-border counterfeit POS transactions effective Oct. 15, 2015. This means that the liability for fraudulent transactions made in retail establishments that have not installed chip card terminals will fall to merchant acquirers and merchants." (There are many articles above this, but here's one - http://blog.gemalto.com/blog/2011/08/16/the-payment-times-they-are-a-changing/)
It's kind of stunning to me that there is not an ETF dealing with all of the various aspects of mobile - smartphones, mobile payments, etc. There's an ETF for everything else.
* Graincorp - Stategic/real assets. Graincorp is an Aussie company that owns silos, owns the railroad that takes the grain to the ports and owns the port terminal operations to take the grain elsewhere in the world. The also own malting and edible oils operations. From a Bloomberg aricle: "With GrainCorp owning the silos where farmers dump their harvests, railroad cars that carry loads to east coast ports, and the elevators used to load ships, the deregulation gave the company a “virtual, natural monopoly” on the eastern seaboard, according to Justin Crosby, a policy director at the Sydney- based NSW Farmers’ Association, which represents 10,000 members, half of them grain growers." Volatile, but has a very nice dividend policy of returning between 40 and 60 per cent of net profit after tax to shareholders across the business cycle. That's a very nice dividend currently, and hopefully the dividend can improve/be more consistent as the company diversifies the business further, with the edible oils business being an entirely new addition as of a couple of weeks ago.
Funds:
Alpine Global Infrastructure - Yes, it's expensive. No, Alpine is not a great fund house. This is, however, a solid fund in the category with a very nice dividend. I continue to have a lot of investments in various infrastructure plays.
Marketfield. Really fits in with my desire for funds that are highly flexible, which I think will continue to be of importance over the next decade. I've found some of the new "long-biased" long-short funds quite interesting - Whitebox being another.
RIT Capital Partners. This is a UK investment trust chaired by Jacob Rothschild (RIT = Rothschild Investment Trust) This has not had a particularly good year, either, although I have no questions about continuing to hold, given the fund's mixture of internally managed stocks, external funds, private equity (it recently purchased a considerable stake in the Rockefeller Financial Group - http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/rockefeller-and-rothschild-banking-dynasties-join-forces/) and real assets. It does have an excellent long-term track record. Short-term, not so much, but it is a long-term holding.
EM - MSMLX, MACSX and AZENX. I had Pimco's Multi-Asset EM fund, but boy did it disappoint. I've owned DEM off and on, but a fair amount of EM fund assets went to Jardine.
Ivy Asset - Again, much discussed already.
In the holy (bleep) department - Janus Overseas. Thankfully, only a small position. Added a little bit recently because really, I'm not sure it could get much worse and I'd rather add to an EM/foreign-heavy fund that's done terribly than something that's been doing tremendously well.
Lastly, I had some mild hedges in ultrashort index positions, but have taken those off as of a few days ago.

Howdy Charles,
Bernanke bashing? Perhaps ecomomic theory bashing? For a sidenote, Paul Krugman noted yesterday, Sept. 12 ;that the "new" Fed. plan was not enough.
Do you find any problems with the continued Federal Reserve plans and policies; or do you feel these plans are needed and will be helpful going forward?
From the report: "In a similar vein, between 1924 and 1927, an easy monetary policy of low
interest rates, with the goal of stabilizing the wholesale price level while stimulating economic growth, led to excessive capital investments in industrial goods industries
and eventually, to investment speculation."
Regards,
Catch

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120913/us-mutual-fund-flows/
Dan Winer tackles strategy and fund picks
http://investorplace.com/2012/09/audio-dan-wiener-tackles-strategy-vghcx-and-fund-picks/
new vehicle: Target bond etf
http://www.mfwire.com/article.asp?template=article&storyID=41261&wire=MFWire&wireID=2&bhcp=1
getting fatter yield w/ bank loan funds
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11702076/1/getting-fatter-yields-with-bank-loan-funds.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN
marc faber commentary about qe3 and gold
http://247wallst.com/2012/09/14/marc-faber-warns-of-bernanke-qe-warns-on-how-to-own-gold-too-gld-sgol/
oil/middle east on fire
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oil-futures-extend-fed-inspired-gains-2012-09-13?cid=djem_sm_dailyviews_h
investing 101: What is a cef
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=567775
also 10 questions newbies should ask
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/09/14/10-questions-beginning-investors-dont-know-to-ask/

Hi Scott,
A spiff position is a special investment position that is put in play with some type of goal in mind. It is usually not a long term position although I have had some that I held for more than a year. I usually use an index fund or a well diverisfied fund for this although I have used some hybrid type funds to. One was IVY Asset Strategy, WASAX. Currently, I have cashed out all my spiff positions and if I continue to trim back my equity allocation, as the market continues its upward march, I'll have to trim some core positions. However, I feel it is better to book gains this year rather than next year from a tax perspective.
Also, I perfer to trim in an updraft rather than a downdraft. If I have not trimmed by the time the downdraft gets here, from my thoughts, I have waited too long. In this way I don't have to right size my portfolio when everybody is selling bacause I am already right sized.
Let me ask you this. Where do you feel corporate earings and revenue are headed over the next twelve months or so? And, if earnings and revenue are flat ... and, the market continues it upward march it is simply because investors are willing to pay more ... price to earnings ratio expansion ... for a dollars worth of earnings. As of the market close today, I compute the S&P 500 Index is selling on a trailing price to earnings ratio of about 16.2 and a forward price to earnings ratio of about 13.6. Its getting kinda of pricey form my thinking ... although I admit ... it can go higher depending on what investors are willing to pay for earnings. Should the S&P 500 Index get to a trailing price to earnings ratio of about 16.7 (1500, S&P 500 Index), I plan to scale back equities some more ... and, I'll do it again should it reach a trailing P/E Ratio of about 17.6 (1585, S&P 500 Index) in the near term.
In addition, the Index is making new fifty two week highs ... and, for it to continue to make new highs it will need more fuel (earnings and revenue).
I am making good money with my system ... and, I am happy.
Thanks for the question ... and, I hope the above response has provided the answer you sought.
Good Investing,
Skeeter

Morn'in Hiyield007,
One sided to bonds at this house, too. Our portfolio chugs along, not receiving the gains of equity sectors YTD; but we sleep okay with this. One may suspect there are some 20% portfolio gains among members here YTD. I do hope that they are able to maintain this until year end; but I remain doubtful.
We retail investors continue to reside within a most perverted monetary and economic scenario. There still remains, a lot of dirt that has been swept under the carpet, by others.
The large players continue to cause some to wonder what to chase next.....
A short summary of the current environment may be noted here:

Take care,
Catch