We moved on from Tweedy Browne many years ago when we found cheaper alternatives with comparable and often better performance. Currency hedging adds to the expense ratio.
Additionally, value style has lagged growth style in oversea investing.

@BaluBalu: Per SCOTUS ruling many years ago, corporations are considered people, so whatever they 'say' (or cause to be put out there on their platforms) can be considered their 'freedom of expression.'
The bigger problem is that in recent years, facts have been replaced by 'feelings' in the public square and in many people's minds and anyone challenging those 'feelings' (often reinforced in echo chambers online and in the media) becomes the enemy and is not to be believed, let alone acknowledged.
"Don't Look Up" was a brilliant but depressing satire of where this kind of society is heading.

@msf, yes I just signed up to two years of credit monitoring as a result of the Change Healthcare Breach, but prior to that I froze my credit with all 5 credit bureaus that MFO members discussed here in past threads.
Thanks to all for keeping us informed.

AMC was trading near $566 a few years ago....now trades at $4.
Gamestop was trading at $81 a few years ago...now trades at $21.
BBBY traded at $16 a few years ago...now its gone.
DJT was trading as high as $79 this year....but where should it be trading? I believe @rforno's $0.15 would be fair value.
DJT belongs in the meme pile.

Rick, so, it comes down to lack of consequences. The more hacks happen, it seems to give permission to others to spend less time, money, and energy on cybersecurity.
Same issue with misinformation perpetuated by social media companies. Lack of consequences.

Yep. My example is this: If the Equifax data breach, which impacted EVERY CITIZEN (and politician) IN AMERICA didn't spawn meaningful cybersecurity reforms, nothing will. It's like how enough politicians believed the killing of innocent school kids in Sandy Hook with automatic weapons was okay, b/c nothing meaningful has resulted in the aftermath of that (or any number of other) incidents, either. So yes, i am a cynic, both on contemporary cybersecurity and politics.
Making it worse is the recent trend to hold CISOs personally responsible for criminal/civic lawsuits resulting from incidents happening on their watch. This is despite CISOs rarely having the authority, resources, staff, or budget to do anything significant ... they've become high-tech eunuchs of the IT world with all the responsibility but little authority. You couldn't pay me enough to become a CISO/CSO again these days! (Years ago I turned down a nice CSO gig on Wall Street b/c I could tell they just wanted an 'expert' to blame when the inevitable occurred.)
Social media (well media generally) is a slippery slope here, because of the First Amendment. Legally speaking, I 'get' that ... but I also 'get' the need for companies to police genuinely false information and go after accounts that engage in threats. Unfortunately, what one party sees as responsible action taken for the public good, the other side decries as 'censorship' of 'free speech' while simultaneously bleating about shutting places (Google, CBS/ABC News, etc) down for the public good.
Le grade sigh.

Some reported breaches have involved not using encryptions for personal and login info, employees falling for spoofing. This is inexcusable in this day and age.
In fact, many banks and card co now warn that if you fall for spoofing, your losses may not be covered.
But companies will spend big money on cybersecurity when they know that there may be penalties. Otherwise, a breach happens and then they just arrange for 1-2 years of free credit monitoring.
BTW, the Fed and FDIC are warning and monitoring banks on cybersecurity issues.

With so many breaches, if a co did not have a breach, it should really feels left out / unimportant. What is the reason for cybersecurity firms or HACK to exist?
Do only companies that have top trade secrets or companies with social security numbers get hacked?
I notice defense industry and social media companies (or MAG 6) do not seem to get hacked - goes towards YBB point about cybersecurity practices.

Defense industry must comply with DOD cybersecurity requirements in many ways. Plus they have very deep pockets to pay for staff/tools to do the job. And, most if not all DOD contractors don't have 'public facing' systems for business transactions -- other than their informational webpages that don't really tie to anything 'critical.' Anything sensitive is more than likely compartmentalized and not touching any network that touches the outside world.
The MAG 6 also have deep pockets to pay for security staff/tools and are therefore much better positioned than most government agencies and commercial sites of all sizes.
After 30 years in this industry I can tell you the vast majority of cybersecurity incidents are the result of not following best practices that we've preached for DECADES. Sure, there are always new vulnerabilities and such, but even then many times the effects of those can be mitigated if we're just doing good cyber-101 type activities. (don't get me started on this......)

Anytime you make a trade, once a month or once a year, you are a trader, and it doesn't matter if it's 10% or 30%.
After years of trading every 4-6 months, I found out that trading based on current market conditions gives me the best risk/reward. It's the only way to avoid the big losses. Intuition and experience play a huge part of it.

A good preventive that would help protect customers from fraud resulting from data breaches would be for the credit 'agencies' to lock all customer records by default to make it harder for criminals to open accounts in their name.
Unfortunately, letting other companies mine consumer credit records for their own advertising is simply too damn profitable for the credit 'agencies' so it's up to consumers to figure out how to do that -- if they can be bothered.
I locked my accounts at the 5 major 'agencies' several years ago after the OPM breach and didn't look back. Some upsides? No junk mail, preapproved credit card offers, and absolutely zero letters or correspondence from a certain association once as I headed into and crossed a certain age. The only (minor) downside? If you buy a car, get a mortgage, open a new credit card, etc. you need to check which 'agency' does the credit check for that bank/dealer so you can unlock your record at a given 'agency' for a few hours, otherwise the credit check won't go through.

"If one is buying anything other than a passive index, one is a trader regardless of whether your average hold period is 3 months or 3 years or 30 years. You are inherently betting that your pick will perform better than an index from an absolute return OR SWAN perspective."
I respectfully disagree. Active fund vs. passive index fund perfomance does not signify whether or not
someone is a trader. If an investor continuously holds the same active funds for 10 years as an example,
I would not consider him/her to be a trader.

The last few messages on this thread have been very educational, tks to all who contributed. I have a similar system as @FD1000 but have high confidence that I'm much less proficient. That said, I do decent on my goal of beating VWELX (either in absolute returns or better risk adjusted returns).
The below comment from FD1000 hit home because this is exactly what I do every 4 weeks relying heavily on the MFO Premium Screener.
"Lastly, that is an exercise I use. Suppose all my money is in cash, what would be my best 2-3 funds to buy now? The answer is exactly what I do. That releases me from any commitment or being sorry."
My 2c on the topic of "trader" vs. "investor" -- SEC definitions are a moot point. If one is buying anything other than a passive index, one is a trader regardless of whether your average hold period is 3 months or 3 years or 30 years. You are inherently betting that your pick will perform better than an index from an absolute return OR SWAN perspective.

From today's update: "The Leuthold Core Fund's Major Trend Index improved to High Neutral due to better economic readings and bullish technical indicators, overriding high valuations and elevated sentiment. As a result, net equity exposure in the Core fund increased to 55%." 60-65% would be "normal" for them. At base, investors are in a mood to party regardless of the price of the ticket so the model says play along (but watch).
Inflation has ticked down to 2.4% YOY. The fed funds rate was cut, and mortgage rates promptly rose as wannabee buyers flooded the market. The S&P and Dow hit all-time highs. DJT (the stock) is surging. The percentile ranking for ARK Innovation ETF in the last five years is: 1 / 100 / 100 / 1 / 100 with two firsts and three lasts averaging out to 99th percentile for the five-year period. ARKK investors are leaving very slowly. Western Asset investors, not so much: the firm saw $28 billion in outflows in the past month.

Thank you @davidsherman. For me, it's the association that took me aback.
Catalyst, Rational, AlphaCentric all seem like asset gathers. Really high er. Front loads. 12b-1 fees. Multiple share classes.
I came across Szilagyi back in 2017 profiling AlphaCentric Income fund. I absolutely loved Tom Miner and the folks at subadvisor Garrison Point, but I was skeptical of their association with Szilagyi's organization.
An excerpt:
Focusing on IOFIX, the adviser pays 0.33% “other” (mostly administrative and servicing). The remaining 1.16% “management fee” (after a 0.01% acquired fund fee) is then split between AlphaCentric and Garrison Point, or 0.58% each. Since another Jerry Szilagyi company “MFund Services LLC,” also gets paid to manage the overall trust, Szilagyi’s firms appear to receive more fee from the fund than GPC does.
Interestingly, AlphaCentric is listed along with Eventide, Pinnacle and Advisory Research as a strategic partner in a firm called Multi-Funds, which describes itself as “A Premier Marketing, Consulting and Distribution Firm.” While this channel may indeed have helped bring attention to IOFIX, allowing the sub-adviser to focus on its strategy and portfolio management … what it loves to do, Multi-Funds hasn’t helped other funds in the AlphaCentric family achieve anywhere near the assets attracted by IOFIX.
Jerry Szilagyi also runs Catalyst Funds, a collection of “Intelligent Alternatives … We understood that the market did not need another traditional family of mutual funds … we endeavor to offer unique investment products to meet the needs of discerning financial advisers and their clients … specialized strategies seeking to produce income and equity-oriented returns while attempting to limit risk and volatility.” There are 28 Catalyst Funds comprising $6.2B in AUM. Average age just under 5 years. Most come in three classes, including those imposing 4.75% front-loads and 12b-1 fees. Average fees: 1.76% (oldest share class, 2.01% all share classes).
When you stood-up CrossingBridge, it just seemed like a horse of a different color.
You're always 10 steps ahead of everybody else in the room, which puts me 20 steps back and surely missing something.
Or, simply being a Pollyanna.
But Szilagyi's brand also ran into regulatory issues, granted he's in good company, but still:
SEC Charges Portfolio Manager and Advisory Firm with Misrepresenting Risk in Mutual Fund
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against a New York-based investment adviser for misleading investors about the management of risk in a mutual fund. Catalyst Capital Advisors LLC (CCA) and its President and Chief Executive Officer, Jerry Szilagyi, agreed to pay a combined $10.5 million to settle the charges. The SEC also filed a complaint in federal district court in Madison, Wisconsin, against Senior Portfolio Manager, Edward Walczak, for fraudulently misrepresenting how he would manage risk for the fund.
https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2020-21
Fund That Lost $700 Million on Bearish Bets Fined for Misleading Investors
Catalyst Capital Advisors and CEO Jerry Szilagyi settled regulatory probes, will pay $10.5 million
A mutual-fund manager that lost 20% with wrong-way bets against the stock market agreed to pay $10.5 million to settle regulatory claims that it misled investors about its procedures for limiting losses.
Catalyst Capital Advisors LLC and its chief executive, Jerry Szilagyi, settled the regulatory probes Monday without admitting or denying wrongdoing. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission also both filed civil fraud lawsuits against Edward Walczak, the portfolio manager who ran the Catalyst Hedged Futures Strategy Fund.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fund-that-lost-700-million-on-bearish-bets-fined-for-misleading-investors-11580167076
I'll post more later on the Catalyst, Rational, and AlphaCentric families.

BB: "How often do you run the fund screener even if your current holdings are performing to your satisfaction?
FD: My simpler original system says run it every 4-6 months regardless of anything and select the best risk/reward funds.
My newer trading system since 2017 with emphasis on making 3% over inflation and never losing more than 3% from any last top has more moving parts. I have 3-4 lists (Multi, HY Muni, Bank loans, others) of my best ideas already. I looked at these lists once a week. I run a generic screener at least once a month, maybe a miss fund.
If my funds are doing fine, like this year, I get lazy for weeks.
BB: What vehicles are available if you do not want to trade but want to make 2-3% + inflation?
FD: the only ones I'm willing to use are special bond funds and that's why I spatialized in these categories. I'm not willing to lose more than 3%. Others may be comfortable with losing 10-20%. I'm looking for bond funds with low SD. Over a year ago, we discussed CBLDX,RSIIX/RSIVX and I posted they are a longer hold, maybe years.
It's never going to be an easy task.
Sure, you can buy VOO and go to sleep...or...PRWCX.
Lastly, that is an exercise I use. Suppose all my money is in cash, what would be my best 2-3 funds to buy now? The answer is exactly what I do. That releases me from any commitment or being sorry.

FD,
Thanks for the following info:
"What is "now"?
Years ago, using my original system, 'now' used to be 1-3 months but I also looked at 1-3 years just to be sure the fund did well for the short+longer term.
Since 2017, "now" is the last 2-3 weeks and where better trading is needed
"now" also means investing in the best wide range funds, why you don't want to diversify, and exactly what I have done."
How often do you run the fund screener even if your current holdings are performing to your satisfaction?

I suspect when @bee posted this thread August 16 there was widespread assumption rates would decline across the curve. While short term rates - notably the Fed overnight discount rate - have fallen, since @bee posted, that has not been the case with longer term rates. August 16, when this thread was started, the 10-year treasure rate stood at about 3.8%. Today it sits at 4.07%. Over the last month 10-year rate has risen sharply from around 3.63% to 4.07%. Consequently, the values of most bond funds with any duration have fallen in recent weeks. ISTM bond investors are smelling more inflation ahead.
Good discussion of high yield. I recognize it’s an important investment for many. In recent years I’ve generally chosen to limit my risk to equities rather than play in the HY area. In fact, I’m getting a little freaked out by narrow spreads and rising rates. Moved all of my 4-5 year old hold in PRIHX (intermediate muni bond) into cash this week, while adding a bit of equity risk. (But I confess to having terrible timing.)
@bee? Are you becoming clairvoyant? The Fidelity article (on how to profit from falling rates) you posted August 16 bears a publication date of August 21 … ? And, it doesn’t appear to have been added later. :)

So, when someone posts about a fund I own now and says, Well, in 2022, it lost more than another fund or in the last 10 years, this fund was better than another, I don't care, what matters is what the fund is doing now..

The problem is defining "now." A fund that does well for a few months or even a year would be bad reason FOR ME to jump in, perhaps you are different. If you have a fund that outperforms for years then that would be a reason for me to move...but just as often I find the fund reverts to the mean rather than continue to outperform, a point you acknowledge in another post. I totally get the idea of riding the wave of a winner, but find that strategy hard to implement in real life. Truth is it's very hard to beat buy and hold with solid funds over a long period of time, or even an index fund. I suspect many of us know that deep down, but just because I'm a bad golfer doesn't mean I dislike golf.

Actually, most funds trail the SP500 with which has a very small expense ratio if you hold for decades. There is a good reason why Bogle and Buffett recommended the SP500 for decades....and it's the easiest way to invest. So, why are we discussing funds and trade?
I came to a conclusion that I want to participate in the markets by using best risk/reward funds. The idea is to find good performance wide range funds with lower volatility, and that will result in a better sharp ratio. My basic system from 2000 to 2013 was to use a fund screener every 4-6 months and find the best 5 risk/reward funds for 1-3 months + 1-3 years and invest 20% in each. After I have done it several years, I learned a lot more about the managers, their history, and their weaknesses and strengths.
2008 was a waking call, I lost 25% in that year, and since then I have been searching for a way to control meltdowns. It took me another 10 years to master that concept, but this time by using special bond funds.
As you can see, it took me years of practice and tweaking. You just can't wake up one morning and be successful doing it.
Of course, bad calls are built into it, the idea is to lose very minimal (which in bondland is 0.1-0.2%) and make a lot more when I'm right. I'm not your typical trader, if my trade is right, I can stay in it for months until I find a better fund.
Now, at retirement, my portfolio is big enough that I only need to make inflation + 2-3%(of course, I want more) and why I don't need to take a lot of risk.
What is "now"?
Years ago, using my original system, 'now' used to be 1-3 months but I also looked at 1-3 years just to be sure the fund did well for the short+longer term.
Since 2017, "now" is the last 2-3 weeks and where better trading is needed
"now" also means investing in the best wide range funds, why you don't want to diversify, and exactly what I have done.

So, when someone posts about a fund I own now and says, Well, in 2022, it lost more than another fund or in the last 10 years, this fund was better than another, I don't care, what matters is what the fund is doing now..

The problem is defining "now." A fund that does well for a few months or even a year would be bad reason FOR ME to jump in, perhaps you are different. If you have a fund that outperforms for years then that would be a reason for me to move...but just as often I find the fund reverts to the mean rather than continue to outperform, a point you acknowledge in another post. I totally get the idea of riding the wave of a winner, but find that strategy hard to implement in real life. Truth is it's very hard to beat buy and hold with solid funds over a long period of time, or even an index fund. I suspect many of us know that deep down, but just because I'm a bad golfer doesn't mean I dislike golf.

As to what constitutes "that moment in time", I can only speak for myself. I tend to look for things which are showing a pattern of doing well over the last couple of weeks as a validation of performance over the last month or two. Something that did well three months ago or before, but is currently stumbling, might indicate an inflection or an accident in composition. The same is true of something which has done nothing for six months, but is currently doing well. Might mean something; might not. It does me little good to be involved with something which did well a year ago, but hasn't in the last month or more. That's a trader's perspective, certainly, and not for everyone.
This is also the perspective of someone who has enough, and who doesn't want to lose what has been gained; I don't, after all, have 30 years to smooth out losses. Purely binary outcomes with roughly equal odds are not appealing. While willing to run risks, I prefer to control the extent of the risk and want to be paid to take that risk. Right now, I chose not to risk a lot, because I don't think you can expect to be paid adequately for taking that risk. So far this year, I've gotten about 70% of the market, while usually holding less than 50% equity and haven't felt at risk. Everyone's situation is different, but I consider that to be a good outcome.

1) hank "@FD / Wouldn’t it help people more if you posted what different investments will do in the next 1, 5, 10 years rather than what they did in the past?"
FD: your claim is pretty old. I don't predict what would be good, I invest based on what markets do currently and what I have posted for about 15 years on different sites.
You can read real time trades (here). What I think about bonds (here) and market calls (here).
2) hank: day/frequent trader
FD: I never said I'm one. I said I'm a trader and I'm not ashamed of it, while many who trade as much as me or more can't admit they are one.
3) BB: what does FD say about the prospects going forward for QQMNX or the L/S category
FD: I have said many times that most should avoid ALT funds and explained why. You must hold for years to see the benefit just to find out it was wrong.
4) MikeM: It's just BS to say this fund did well in this time frame but didn't do well in another,
FD: it's not BS, history proved that 1-2 categories can be at the top for years. Constructing a portfolio with the best funds now and never trading will not guarantee best results in the next 10 years. Markets change. Managers that did great with one style will lag markets that do better with another style.
One of the best writers in this site is Charles Lynn Bolin because of his ability to change based on current markets.
5) MikeM: To keep responding with fund suggestions after the fact and thinking you are some guru is irritating.
FD: of course, we had to get to this claim :-) Just read the above 3 links in item 1).
6) MikeM: I don't believe that FD can construct a portfolio for a second.
FD: pretty funny Mike.