@hank I've searched for individual YOOTs. Valuation as measured by P/E are never in the same neighborhood as other value stocks. Guess there's lots of overhead, maintenance of wire lines and shrub and tree-branch cutting to be done. (Unless you just don't care, like PG & E.) Very "busy" that way. I've not bought one. Further, they are typically regulated pretty tightly, though I note that Regulators all seem to cave-in to demands from those Yoots. Reminds me of my teen years, when scum-hole Billy Bulger (brother of Whitey) "served" as Insurance Commissioner in MA. They'd come to him and he'd always just say: "sure, go ahead. Charge people more. Makes no difference to me. Will that be enough for you?"
Fred Gwynne, My Cousin Vinny: "What is a yoot?"

”Individual stock returns listed on M* and other sites(YTD, various average annual time periods) would be less annual dividends, correct?”

@Roy - I think you are incorrect. Pretty sure those M* annual return numbers (and those from similar sources) reflect average returns with dividends reinvested. Also, the numbers reflect the effect of compounding - especially important in the multi-year numbers. I’m less certain when it comes to graphs at Google & elsewhere. ISTM those are raw NAV numbers w/o dividends factored in. Fund prospectuses also provide a similar presentation of a fund’s return out to 10 years. ISTM they are required to provide that data. (Woe is Hussman)
Here’s what Chat GPT answered when I asked using Bing’s website:
”Published mutual fund returns typically do include the effect of reinvested dividends and compounding. Let me explain further:
1. Reinvested Dividends:
When you invest in a mutual fund, some of the companies held within that fund may pay out dividends to their shareholders. If you choose to reinvest these dividends, they are used to purchase additional shares of the mutual fund. The reinvested dividends contribute to the overall growth of your investment over time. Therefore, the published returns of a mutual fund usually account for the reinvestment of dividends.
2. Compounding:
Compounding refers to the process where your investment earns returns, and those returns themselves generate additional returns. In the context of mutual funds, compounding occurs when both the capital appreciation (increase in the fund's value) and reinvested dividends work together to boost your overall return. Published returns typically reflect this compounding effect.
3. Total Return:
The total return of a mutual fund includes both capital gains (price appreciation) and any income generated (such as dividends). It considers the reinvestment of dividends and the compounding effect. This total return is what you'll find in published reports or when researching mutual funds.
In summary: When you see published mutual fund returns, they already incorporate the impact of reinvested dividends and the power of compounding. Keep in mind that fees and expenses may also affect the actual returns you receive. Always review the fund's prospectus and consult with a financial advisor for personalized advice.”

As a person who has largely invested through open end mutual funds for 40 years with only holding a handful of individual stocks during that time, when I am researching mutual funds I am used to "total return" figures from mutual fund companies and M*.
Individual stock returns listed on M* and other sites(YTD, various average annual time periods) would be less annual dividends, correct?

This ad-hoc feature returns this week with several related stories. LINK1 LINK2 BarronsLINK
FORSYTH is a fan of CEFs at discount. He now likes muni MYD, VFL, LEO; options-writing equity GDV, ECF, AOD, AGD; term-trusts FTHY, BSL.
FUNDS. Cash/cash-equivalents won’t be attractive for long. Consider extending maturities with ultra-, short- and intermediate- term bond funds (ICSH, MINT, JAAA; BSV; BND). Multisector bond funds (OSTIX, TSIAX), and dividend-stock funds (VYM, XLV).
FUNDS. Thematic AI-ETFs are hot now, but those may include all sorts of related techs: BOTZ, AIQ, TECB, IGPT, CHAT, etc. Be aware that tech ETFs QQQ, XLK, etc have related tech exposures; SP500 (IVV, VOO, SPY) is also heavy in techs.
Q&A/Interview. Alesia HAAS, Coinbase/COIN CFO. The US-based Coinbase has been very volatile. It ran up on the excitement related to the SEC approval of several physical/spot-Bitcoin ETFs (iShares IBIT, Fidelity FBTC, Grayscale GBTC, etc), but then sold off when investors became concerned that its new Bitcoin ETF custody business was a low-margin business that may hurt its retail business. COIN has diverse businesses – exchange, broker-dealer, custody; recent rate hikes helped with higher interest income. It has also increased its global presence. The legal fight with the SEC continues. These new Bitcoin ETFs will appeal to institutions, pension funds, RIAs. This will be a long-term positive for the industry, and for COIN, despite some short-term concerns. Congress needs to pass new crypto legislations, but it has been bogged down with other pressing matters.
RETIREMENT. Homeowners may tap home-equity loans (HELOCs). Typical rates are variable, now around 9.27%. Beware of teaser rates and conditions that may trigger credit line reduction or cancellation. Of course, it’s a loan that has to be repaid, so discipline is required.
Supplement GUIDE TO WEALTH
In this expensive market, consider DIVIDEND-paying stocks. Only funds are mentioned below, but several stocks are also included in the article.
US: VYM, SCHD
Consumer-Staples: XLP
Financials: XLF
MLPs: SMAPX
Real Estate: VNQ, XLRE
Utilities: XLU, UTG
Foreign: IEFA, IEMG
Cash-Equivalents: in limited amounts.
Variations of BENGEN’s (1994) 4% initial withdrawal with COLA are discussed. Bengen himself says that 4.7% w/COLA is fine now; some advisors say that 6% w/COLA but annual monitoring may work. Others say to skip COLA in down years. Another variation is to just take 4% of the yearend balances – it removes the SOR risk, but annual withdrawals may vary widely. Immediate-annuities transfer longevity risks to insurance companies for fees. Keep in mind that increasing RMDs are also required from T-IRA and 401k/403b; Roth Conversions will reduce the RMDs.

@David, I agree 100%. Though if fund managers were content to not be beholden to (or required to track?) a benchmark, this probably wouldn't as big a concern for them. But if they can't brag about their performance vs. an index or fund category, they'd struggle to market themselves to attract AUM and/or differentiate from the crowd. Thus, many funds often act alike and become a costly jumble of 'me-too' vehicles in their manager's quest to dodge peer pressure.
I like absolute return metrics myself, at least in terms of overall analysis of performance - in my portfolio, I don't care if I 'beat/trail the S&P or my M* category or other funds. If I can SWAN and make a decent return for myself and my needs, whether that performance is +/- 5%, 11%, or 25% in a given year vs everyone else, I don't care. But the average investor tends to act only on recency bias, so immediate past/current performance is all the fund managers focus on to attract new money.
(I don't like most of the popular tracking/benchmarking indexes anyway, which are used by most passive indexing funds that are so widely held, because they're market-cap weighted, as I've said for years. But they're 'cheap' which is used as a carrot to attract investors, so....here we are.)

Different twist. This one’s for “ordinary” rather than “regular” investors - :)
“In the past several years, private-equity firms have begun to raise large amounts of money from retail investors, a group that most alternative-asset managers had typically neglected. Private funds are generally open to people with at least $1 million to invest or an annual salary of $200,000 or more …”
WSJ
Here’s a YAHOO link / story if you don’t have a WSJ subscription.

@dily Hi! Devesh makes the essential point: are you getting what you're paying for? Does the manager offer sufficient value to justify their fees?
For about 80% of all funds, the answer is "no." Our corporate position has always been that 80% of funds could close with no loss to anybody but the adviser's bottom line. Some funds, however, earn their keep. Devesh's explorations in international investing, for example, have led him to conclude, at least provisionally, that passive does not work in certain international arenas and that at least some managers fully earn their keep.
I have the same impression with absolute value or absolute return managers. There's an impossibly small pool of managers who are good at security selection but even better at being able to say "sometimes stocks are not worth the price, we're not owning them." That leads them to back out of the market's frothiest phases, which sorely affronts investors who expect ARKK-like upside paired with substantial downside protection. FPA, for example, lost half its AUM over a period of about four years even though it was posting double-digit returns with limited equity exposure. Leuthold likewise.
My own investment needs - reasonable upside, strong downside protection, the prospect of sleeping well - align with the willingness of Leuthold, FPA and Palm Valley to buy when conditions are good and turn away when they're not. I think that's valuable and worth the ask. I'd love to pay less but with investors relocating to passive competitors, it's not clear that will happen.
Does that make any sense?

Yeah, @Crash. Sectors like Natural Resources are more of a momentum play, I think, than a buy and hold core investment. NR has been a poor investment for over 10 years. It's not PRNEX, it's the sector it invests in.
Growth of $10,000 over 10 years (Schwab data):
PRNEX $13,528
NR category: $13,264
Compared to the broader US market S&P 500: $32,807
That's pretty much the equivalent of making about 2.5% a year on your NR investment.
Anything that isn't broad and diversified will have really good stretches along with really lean years.

@WABAC MRFOX has limited brokerage availability in order to control inflows. When it only existed as a separate account, $$$ flowed in heavily when the market turned down.

Do you or any one here have access to the strategy returns by year (relative to SPY) for years prior to the inception of the fund? Thanks

MRFOX strategy appears to be around for 20 years, based on this letter -
https://www.marshfieldinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Marshfield-Associates-Newsletter-December-2023-The-Ghost-in-the-Machine-4.pdf
They manage about $5b through separate accounts.

NVDA makes chips. Lots of companies make chips.
Look at where Intel is today compared to where it was a few years ago.

Respecting @stillers request we start a new thread to discuss NVDA etc here goes
My favorite Dot.com quote from Scott McNeely CEO of SUN
"At 10 times revenues, to give you a 10-year payback, I have to pay you 100% of revenues for 10 straight years in dividends. That assumes I can get that by my shareholders. That assumes I have zero cost of goods sold, which is very hard for a computer company. That assumes zero expenses, which is really hard with 39,000 employees. That assumes I pay no taxes, which is very hard. And that assumes you pay no taxes on your dividends, which is kind of illegal. And that assumes with zero R&D for the next 10 years, I can maintain the current revenue run rate. Now, having done that, would any of you like to buy my stock at $64? Do you realize how ridiculous those basic assumptions are? You don’t need any transparency. You don’t need any footnotes. What were you thinking?"
NVDA Price to Revenue is three or four times SUNW then
This quote is from the Felder report
https://thefelderreport.com/2017/10/26/what-were-you-thinking/
I would post the stock chart image if I knew how. It is in the link. ( at 72 I must admit I am a bit technologically challenged)
Bottom line: "a chart of Sun Micro from 1996 to 2006. It started around $5 ran up to that $64 Scott mentions and then fell right back to $5. And you would think this might serve as a cautionary tale for investors today."

In case this thread survives as intended, I'll routinely recap what's been posted so as not to lose track of it.
FWIW, VERY surprising (to me at least) results so far!
(BOLD added.)
@stillers: 21.2% - See OP for breakdown
@Art: Since I have stocks only at this time it's easy. NVDA at 3%.
@habsui: I put 2.4% of PV into AMZN,MSFT,GOOG over 11 years ago.
Only sold a little AMZN. So ... about 30%.
@hank: I stay as far away as I can from them.
@sma3: about 3%...Mostly MSFT for years. No TSLA or META Both run by lunatics!

about 3%
Mostly MSFT for years. No TSLA or META Both run by lunatics!

GSIHX was mentioned in Morningstar FundInvestor (February 2024).
"Led by manager Rajiv Jain, Goldman Sachs GQG
Partners International Opportunities has continued to
build upon its strong record. Over the 12 months
ended January 2024, the fund’s 20.6% return crushed
the MSCI ACWI ex USA Index’s 5.9% return. The
fund’s performance ranked in the top decile of its
foreign large-growth Morningstar Category in
calendar years 2022 and 2023, a rare feat considering
the drastically different market environments."

Thanks @Observant1
And I wasn’t predicting an immediate precipice. or drawing a direct parallel to 2000. Odds are these stocks will continue to move a lot higher before something breaks. Possibly for years. And it should be noted that even folks who bought tech funds at the top in 2000 made out just fine if they held on for the next 15 years.

I won’t change your mind, and you won’t change mine, I simply shared an episode from years ago, Personally, I’m standing clear. Lots of other places to invest. It’s your money to do what you want with. A year ago folks were salivating all over about 5% money market funds following a 18% fall in the S&P and a drop of 33% on the NASDAQ the year before. I thought that the clamor for cash was a bit excessive as well.

"The NASDAQ did not again rise to its 2001 peak until 15 years later”
I wonder how many of the stocks in the NASDAQ at it's 2001 peak are in it today.

I stay as far away as I can from them.
Dot-com bubble of 1999-2000
“During the late 1990s, the values of internet-based stocks rose sharply. As a result, the technology-dominated NASDAQ Composite Index (NASDAQINDEX:^|XIC) surged from 1,000 points in 1995 to more than 5,000 in 2000. But in early 2001, the dot-com stock bubble started to burst. The NASDAQ peaked at 5,048.62 points on March 10. The index would go on to plummet by 76.81% until it reached a low of 1,139.90 points on Oct. 4, 2002. The primary cause of this crash was overvalued internet stocks. Many investors speculated that dot-com companies - even those without revenues - would one day become extremely profitable. As a result, they poured money into the sector, driving up the valuation of every company with "dot-com" in its name. The stock market bubble burst when the Federal Reserve Board tightened its monetary policy, constraining the flow of capital. The NASDAQ did not again rise to its 2001 peak until 15 years later”
Source
I have vivid memories of that period. Wasn’t pretty for those that had drunk the Kool Aid.
Most dangerous words in investing: “This time it’s different …”

Thanks Yogi. People seem to love or hate the fund in its various guises. Morningstar takes aim at it for any number of reasons … Franklin’s Desai in this year’s Barron’s Roundtable recommends it as a top pick. (obviously a biased source ). What she said in Barron’s:
Desai: - ”I will stick with the Franklin Income fund, which I have recommended in the past. It has a 12-month yield of 5.66% and has paid dividends for 70 years. The fund invests across multiple asset classes. Its current equity allocation, 35%, is among the lowest in its history, and tilted to value names that have lagged behind the broader market. That could provide upside potential.”
It’s a weird fund in that it seems to have a risk / reward profile closer to an equity fund than an “income” fund. About 30% equities at present and 65% bonds. The bonds appear evenly split between investment grade and BBB and below.
Added: Not a recommendation. But before buying the OEF discussed above, I’d take a look at less than 1-year old INCM. Same managers. Very similar allocation. ER much lower at .38%