@bee: Thanks Bee, I've always been a fan of Craig L. Israelsen. Here are some other articles.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.financial-planning.com/thought_leaders/israelsen.html

My most expensive fund, which I know several other people here hold, is WAFMX at 2.25%. Ed's commentary made me think a lot as well, and it seems to me that you either have to believe you're getting something valuable for the expense ratio or you shouldn't invest in the fund. In this case I chose the fund because it gives me access to markets that I believe will provide above average returns in the long run and I wanted exposure to the growing middle class in those markets rather than the big financial institutions that some other frontier markets funds offer.
In the case of each fund I own, a bit more than 20 of them, I consider the expense ratio as one aspect of whether I want to trust them with my money. In the case of Primecap, I love that the expense ratio is low, and I think they far more than earn it. In the case of Grandeur Peak, I don't like that the expense ratio is as high as it is, but I feel like their approach, their shareholder friendliness and the fact that the managers as a group have a lot of money invested in each of their funds gives me confidence that the expense ratio will be worth it.

"The pity is DFA's funds must be purchased through a financial adviser who charges a fee on top of DFA's."
To paraphrase a quote from the movie The Sand Pebbles, "that's his rice bowl."
I wouldn't expect that person to work and provide his services for free.

ibartman, you're welcome. Regarding the IELG vs DFEOX comparison, one year's performance isn't very meaningful, but it doesn't surprise me that DFEOX has done well. DFA is a very interesting shop and has unique advantages other index/quant shops don't always have. Here's a description of DFA's trading strategies in a Barron's article that highlights one of its key advantages: "TRADING IS ALSO a crucial factor in DFA's outperformance. Index funds trade in baskets -- whenever a stock is added or dropped from the index, it's bought or sold almost immediately, which can drive the price up or down. Similarly, active managers often want to get into or out of a stock quickly. DFA, however, takes a more methodical, opportunistic approach to trading. There's never pressure to buy or sell a fund within a certain time frame. Instead, it serves as a market-maker for the 14,000 stocks it owns, offering to sell when frenzied buying has sent the bid higher, and taking a stock off another trader's hands when the shares can be acquired cheaply. Every morning, traders get a list of stocks the firm wants to buy or sell, but instead of mandated trading orders, the trading desk determines if conditions are good for each transaction. "We go into the market and see where the most anxiety is and where we can trade at favorable prices," says Booth. "We provide liquidity."
The pity is DFA's funds must be purchased through a financial adviser who charges a fee on top of DFA's.

The Barrons and M* links go to articles that require a subscription and consequently are of no use to me. The info is inaccessible, I cannot mentally participate.
@LewisBraham I am glad that Ted's posting method agrees with you, and that you can rest easier with the belief your career in financial journalism remains on-track and your financial well-being is a little bit more secured. Continue with your groundbreaking research, the world awaits.

My "alternative" (sic) fund owns: Stocks, Bonds, Options, Derivatives (in various forms), Preferred Stocks, Debentures, Swaps....and that is quite enough because if I knew more I would be managing my own money.
During the dot com boom did most people knew WTF their mutual funds were investing in? How about during the financial crisis? How about EVER? When it comes to most people they don't know what they are doing OR their day job is not managing money. Where were you Jaffe on 2000 or in 2007? Did you warn people about Tech stocks / Financial stocks? Now after a few people have come and written articles about how "alternative investments" are not what they are cracked up to me, you come and write a "me too" article? What a job. What a F****** job!
Over the years I have learnt enough to know a certain word in the fund name means nothing. M* categorization sucks to boot regardless of whether the word "alternative" is in the name of the fund. I give you Legg Mason VALUE trust. VALUE? Purified Bovine Waste.
To me, someone like Steve Romick is an "Alternative Fund Manager". Someone who invests with lower co-relation to S&P 500 just like "bonds" are supposed to do. Since I'm no 007 I go with Romick. I can say the same about John Deysher who ids 50% in cash. Or even Hussman, who I admit needs to look at "alternative" (pun intended) ways to hedge.
Finally, he is taking a page out of MY book. Diversify manager risk away by owning multiple alternative funds? That's all you got Chuck? Remember, how investors should not own too many funds?

From the link, I did find this concerning International Opportunities Fund:
*“Management Fees” and “Other Expenses” have been restated reflecting the new advisory fee as of October [XX], 2014 and the related change in the Fund’s investment strategy from a fund of funds investing in other Causeway Funds to direct investing in portfolio securities. Accordingly, “Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses” disclosed
3
Table of Contents
above differ from the “Ratio of Expenses to Average Net Assets (Excluding Waivers)” in the financial highlights section of this Prospectus because the financial highlights do not reflect changes to the advisory fee and expense limit agreement effective as of October [XX], 2014.

Market Risk come into play in both active and passive fund investing.
The possibility for an investor to experience losses due to factors that affect the overall performance of the financial markets.

Hi Ted,
Thank you for posting this alert on yet another Charles Ellis short research paper extolling the virtues of Index investing.
You asked “If Haystackers (Indexers) are so right, why do they spend so much time trying to prove it.”
Part of an answer is that Indexers are not always “so right”. Yes Indexing outperforms a major fraction of actively managed mutual funds, but not all. There are environments when active managers do quite well.
But it is true that these periods of relative advantage have become shorter in duration, more difficult to predict along the time dimension, and much more difficult to identify
who will be the winners.
Ellis and Michael Mauboussian believe that one contributing factor in this complex equation is the advancing skill level of the institutional and professional players. If outcomes are determined by a combination of skill and luck, as skill becomes more equalized, luck becomes the dominant factor. And nobody foretells luck.
Also, there has been a sea change in terms of who investors trade against. In yesterday’s market, individual investors mostly traded with each other, so pricing anomalies were produced more often than in today’s marketplace. That’s because today’s transactions are dominated by professionals battling professionals in 90% of the instances. Pricing mistakes are rarer.
Even given the rising popularity of Index investing, it is still a small percentage of Wall Street activity. Much of the recent gains is due to Institutional participation at a higher level.
Many individual investors are ill-informed, are misdirected by financial outfits, are slow learners. Therefore, the “beating of the drums” is necessary to engage the general public’s attention. And advertisers have learned that that message must be repeated again and again and again and……. McDonalds and Fidelity have both learned that lesson well.
Yes, Charles Ellis is now a hired gun, but I believe he came to his current investment philosophy honestly by research and by experience. His studies and opinions are to be trusted and to be given considerable weight when assembling a long-term portfolio. A long time ago, he warned us to the dangers of the Loser’s Game, and later produced a book of strategies to win at that game.
When Charles Ellis speaks, I listen(I've heard this before, but it is more appropriate when applied to Ellis).
Best Wishes.

Hello, everyone. I promised an update. Here's my total run-down, after the change, tonight:
1. MAPIX 23.57% of portfolio Matthews Asia Div.
2. PRWCX 18.74 TRP Cap. Apprec.
3. PRESX 14.87 TRP Developed Europe
4. MAPOX 9.01 Mairs & Power Balanced
5. MEASX 6.2 Matthews Emerging Asia
6. MAFSX 6.19 Matthews Focused
7. PREMX 3.94 TRP Emerg. Mkt Bonds
8. MAINX 3.54 Matthews mostly Asia bonds
9. SFGIX 2.82 Seafarer EM
10. TRAMX 2.81 TRP Africa-Middle East
11. MACSX 2.63 Matthews Growth & Income
12. DLFNX 2.46 DoubleLine bonds
13. MSCFX 2.45 Mairs & Power Small-cap.
14. NAESX 0.76 (wife's 403b) Vanguard Small-cap Index Fund
*****************************
M* Instant X-Ray:
Cash 4%
US 20
Foreign 56
-Europe Developed 14.63
-Europe Emerg. 0.46
-Asia Dev. 11.63
-Asia Emerg. 23.99
-Japan 7.76
-UK 7.56
-Canada 6.74
-Ausralasia 3.83
-Africa/Middle East 2.79
-Latin America 0.61
BONDS: 17
"Other:" 3
++++++++++++++
Thanks for all the support, everyone. As I suppose it is for the rest of you, this thing is always a work in progress. I mentioned that I'll be growing MAPOX, and also my bond funds, particularly DLFNX. An intense, focused, lengthy conversation with a financial pro last year was enlightening. Wholesale changes were made. I want it to be truly worldwide. It is that. But it's still, as I say, a work in progress. Like myself.

FYI: “One lesson from 2008 is that if it’s very complicated and you don’t understand it, maybe you shouldn’t buy it.” – Harry Markowitz
It appears some people didn’t learn their lesson from the CDO debacle of the last financial crisis. This comes from a story in last week’s Wall Street Journal on a new fixed income derivative product that’s being rolled out by Goldman Sachs (emphasis mine):
Regards,
Ted
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/chasing-yield-looks-like/
Click On Article Title Top Of Google Search)
Yield Hunters' New Tune Echoes Financial Engineering's Past
https://www.google.com/#q=yield+hunters+wsj

FYI: T he average U.S. taxable bond fund continues to boast a higher return than the S&P 500 in the past 15 years, though the general stock market has been catching up since it hit bottom after the 2007-08 financial crisis.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTg0MDcyMTg=
Enlarged Graphic: http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WEBmutPent082614.gif&docId=714744&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1063&caption=&id=714746

I owned Fuss's LSBRX 2006-2013....but I wanted my bond fund to provide ballast, to go up when my stocks when down.......
I sold my stake in LSBRX and bought SUBFX. So far that has been a poor decision, but my hope is that SUBFX will hold up well if the markets crash, and that's what I want from a bond fund. (I'm 85% equities, so I really need the bond funds in my portfolio to be bulletproof.)
Then again, with its negative duration, I am beginning to fear that SUBFX will not provide much protection if the economy stalls and interest rates drop yet further, though I suppose its 50% cash stake will provide a cushion. Can anyone who understands bonds better than me comment on this?

@expatsp, your thinking process was very sound. When you are 85% equities and looking for ballast, you don't want a fund like Loomis Sayles, because it doesn't accomplish your stated intent. On the other hand, if you were 85% Treasuries and looking for more risk and return, Loomis Sayles would have been a great choice.
Below investment grade bonds can add diversification to a portfolio consisting primarily of investment grade bonds, like Treasuries, or the total bond market index. The same below investment grade bonds do NOT add diversification to a stock portfolio.
Take a look at bond market performance during the financial crisis, say 2008. Stocks and below investment grade bonds both did terrible and were highly correlated. Treasury bonds did great. Look at the big recovery year, 2009. Stocks and below investment grade bonds again performed in sync.
For your stated purpose, a reasonable choice would have been a Treasury bond fund. The highest quality bonds are the ones most likely to do what you stated, "to go up when my stocks when down." In a financial crisis there is a "flight to safety", and safety means Treasuries.
However, now we have an extra issue to think about: interest rate risk. If a fund has a 6 year duration, then if the interest rate on those bonds goes up 2%, the fund will lose 12% in NAV, then add back in the yield to get the total return.
But you comment is quite correct, "with its negative duration, I am beginning to fear that SUBFX will not provide much protection if the economy stalls and interest rates drop yet further"
Let's wait to you read this to see if we want to continue....

Hi Ted,
The fund that you mentioned (SHRAX) likely never made it to my candidates list way back in the early 1990s. I avoided front-end loaded mutual funds like the plaque that they are. I was reading John Bogle’s “Common Sense on Mutual Funds” in those days, and indeed agreed that costs mattered greatly.
The front-loaded funds were immediately discarded by me from further consideration. I probably interviewed a half dozen financial advisors during that period, and every single one of them recommended portfolios populated only by these costly products.
Our potential retirement war-chest was modest, and I was sickened at the prospects of reducing it immediately by a composite 5% to 6%. It would take years of positive outcomes to replace those unnecessary highway robbery charges. I still feel that way, but less so as my wealth substantially increased. Even then, I believe that I recognized that I was summarily tossing away some excellent fund managers.
I do like Ricky Freeman’s record and his tenure. It is outstanding. He definitely is a talented and skilled stock picker. I am especially impressed by his low portfolio turnover numbers. The man makes his choices, and he stays the course with them. He sticks to his guns. Good for him, and the record shows that it is good for his investors too.
Automatically discarding front loaded funds will eliminate some superior active fund managers. However, I suspect that from an overarching portfolio strategy, it probably does more good than harm.
That’s more than a naked opinion since the cumulative fund management data consistently demonstrates that, on an annual basis, only 20% to 40% of active mangers outdistance passive Index management. Integrated over time, those numbers deteriorate even more, not including the upfront fee. It’s a hard uphill road to overcome fees, and the odds do not favor the individual investor.
Thanks for your input.
Best Wishes.

@rjb112 Yeah. Maybe, at some point, we could get @BobC (he's a licensed financial advisor with a number, isn't he?) to go register at Aston and take a peek under the privileged covers, just to see if the fund information available to advisors is "all that," so statistically deep that we common folk could not possibly understand/interpret its meaning and would endanger our financial health if we tried. Yuck, yuck.

...previously only available to advisors.

What a racket.

Can't stand that stuff.
A lot of websites I sign up for have separate versions and separate access.....the "financial advisors" get one level of access, and we 'regular people' get a lower level of access.
A bunch of crock.

FYI: So you have been bitten by the gold bug? Here are six easy ways to add a little gold to any portfolio — and the pros and cons of each. (Sources: GoldResource.net, SeekingAlpha.com, Morningstar Inc. and Kapitall Inc)
Regards,
Ted
1. Mutual Fund
The $70 million Gold Bullion Strategy Investor Fund (QGLDX) is currently the only mutual offering pure-play exposure to the price of gold. Launched 12 months ago, the fund gains exposure to the gold through a 25% allocation to gold futures contracts and a 75% weighting in short-term bonds.
Pros: Liquidity. Also works as an interest rate hedge. No transaction costs.
Cons: Above average expense ratio. Relatively untested strategy.
2. Exchange-Traded Funds
The financial services industry created multiple ways to generate long- or short-exposure to the price of gold. But, keep in mind, whether the various exchange-traded products are offering long or short exposure, they are essentially designed to track the price of gold, as opposed actually owning the precious metal.
Pros: Inexpensive to own and easy to buy, with all-day liquidity. A good vehicle for traders.
Cons:Transaction costs. Most company-sponsored retirement plans still do not offer exchange-traded product
3. Gold bullion
There is no greater commitment to gold investing than direct ownership and possession of gold coins and bullion.
Pros: A sense of security like none other, assuming you have a secure storage facility. The best price you’ll get when buying physical gold.
Cons: There is a mark-up when purchasing bars and ingots, and when selling you might need to hire a professional appraiser. Bullion is also less liquid than coins, and can be difficult to use as an actual currency for smaller purchases.
4. 4. Gold coins
Coins introduce a different level of physical gold ownership because the value is affected by multiple factors, including brand, country of origin, and supply of specific coin brands by location.
Pros: When demand for gold is high, gold coins can sell at a premium to the price of gold. Can be used as currency.
Cons: Easy to purchase, but there is usually a steep convenience upcharge, and the spreads rarely favor smaller investors.
5. Futures and options
Not for the meek or inexperienced investor, trading futures and options is considered among the best ways to make money in gold, assuming you have a solid understanding of how it’s done. It is a strategy best left to the professionals.
Pros: A lot of money can be made without putting up a lot capital, because this is a market designed for speculators.
Cons: You can lose your shirt in a hurry.
6. Gold-mining stocks
A less direct way to gain exposure to the price of gold, mining company stocks generally benefit from rising gold prices, but the correlation can be unpredictable because of other factors driving revenues and profits.
Pros: There is usually dividend income. The stocks can sometimes outperform gold prices.
Cons: Transaction costs for buying and selling the securities. There is always a risk that the company stock prices will move way out of step with the price of gold.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/102816/000094039414001195/multicap_growthfundspprosupp.htm
497 1 multicap_growthfundspprosupp.htm MULTICAP_GROWTH_FUND_SP_PRO_SUPP_DTD_8_20_14
Eaton Vance Multi-Cap Growth Fund
Supplement to
Prospectus dated January 1, 2014 and
Summary Prospectus dated January 1, 2014
On September 19, 2014, Eaton Vance Multi-Cap Growth Fund will discontinue all sales of its shares, except shares purchased by: (1) existing shareholders (including shares acquired through the reinvestment of dividends and distributions); (2) employer sponsored retirement plans; or (3) fee-based programs (a) sponsored by financial intermediaries for which investment decisions are made on a centralized basis at the discretion of the firm (e.g., model portfolios managed by a firm or its investment committee); and (b) that have selected the Fund prior to the close of business on September 19, 2014.
August 20, 2014
16011 8.20.14

@Crash: Well, historically you can make a very good case for religion(s) promoting what we would generally call ethical behavior in the general population, at least. I could even be persuaded that without the overall influence of religion, civilization would be in a lot worse shape than it is now, although that may hardly seem possible. But I still submit that religion is about some people attempting to control the beliefs and/or conduct of other people, by whatever means is expedient. That, of course, may not necessarily always be a bad thing.
Mixing religion and politics, or religion and financial affairs, is fraught with danger to all parties concerned. Gilead Eventide is an abomination, to keep this train on the correct track.

Well, for what it's worth, and IM<HO, it is open in many retirement accounts. I just started a new 401k with my new employer and Wellington is where I'm putting the money. Principal is the financial institution handling the 401k.